Where a defendant was charged with both Three Strike enhancements and firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53, the court properly sentenced him under both section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A)(iii) as well as section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (d). Appellant argued that because subdivision (j) of the latter statute requires the court to sentence a defendant under that section unless a different sentencing scheme would provide for a longer term, the court was required to sentence him under the strike law rather than under the firearm enhancements. The court disagreed, noting that the Three Strikes law specifically accounts for imposing count-specific enhancements under these circumstances, and noting that sentencing defendant under both provisions did not contradict the legislative intent behind either sentencing scheme.