⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears Curt Herrera's challenge to the refusal to reconsider his sentence after one of his firearm convictions was vacated. Herrera was convicted for his role in a racketeering organization involved in robbery, kidnapping, murder and drug trafficking. His punishment included multiple life terms, plus additional prison terms for using firearms in connection with crimes of violence. He later challenged five firearm convictions under Supreme Court decisions about what qualifies as a crime of violence. The district court vacated one count with the government's agreement, but did not conduct a new sentencing hearing or decide the remaining four challenges on their merits. Its reasoning was that separate life sentences would keep Herrera in prison regardless, without meaningful additional consequences from the disputed convictions. This is an application of the concurrent sentence doctrine, even though these firearm terms were to run after his life terms. Herrera's lawyer will ask for further consideration and resentencing, emphasizing that the law governing his old offenses permitted a sentence below life and that the judge's explanation did not establish that she considered that possibility. The government will defend the existing life sentences and the judge's decision not to reopen sentencing. Listen for the difference between a sentence required by a statute, the once-binding Sentencing Guidelines, and a judge exercising discretion to keep a life sentence.

Herrera v. United States of America (No. 24-2352) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.