Hicks v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 2000

Marcus Deshaw Hicks pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and received a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence under a statute that was later affected by the Fair Sentencing Act.
After Hicks was sentenced but before his direct appeal, this Court decided Dorsey v. United States, holding the Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants sentenced after the Act’s effective date even if the offense predated it.
Hicks did not raise a Dorsey-based argument on direct appeal; the Fifth Circuit affirmed his sentence.
The Government filed a brief in this Court conceding the sentence was legally erroneous under Dorsey and asked the Court to vacate and remand so the Fifth Circuit can perform plain-error review.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below, and remanded to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Government’s filing.
Justice Gorsuch concurred, urging remand because a plain legal error likely affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings; Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Thomas) dissented, opposing vacatur absent a determination on the remaining plain-error prongs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Dorsey to Hicks’ sentence	Hicks (through concession) argues his 20-year mandatory sentence is legally incorrect under Dorsey	Government concedes error and asks for remand for plain-error analysis	Cert granted; judgment vacated and remanded to 5th Cir. for consideration in light of Government’s brief
Whether the Court should decide all plain-error prongs now	Hicks (via concurrence) implies the remaining prongs likely satisfied and remand is routine	Government asks remand so the court of appeals can decide prongs three and four in the first instance	Court remanded rather than deciding prongs three and four itself
Effect of an unpreserved but plain error on substantial rights	Hicks/concurrence argues likely affected substantial rights because mandatory minimum produced materially harsher sentence than §3553(a) would	Government did not press prongs three and four before this Court, requesting lower court review	Remand ordered so the appellate court can assess effect on substantial rights
Appropriateness of vacatur without Government conceding all plain-error elements	Hicks/concurrence: vacatur/remand appropriate; correcting obvious sentencing error protects liberty	Roberts dissent: oppose vacatur absent Court finding or Government concession on remaining prongs	Supreme Court vacated and remanded; dissent voiced objection to vacatur without full resolution here

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error test framework)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (harmless-error/when to remand)
Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (plain-error remand practice)
United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (plain-error doctrine and remand)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants sentenced after its effective date)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error prong discussion)
Nunez v. United States, 554 U.S. 911 (caution against vacatur absent clear error or reliable concession)
United States v. Sabillon-Umana, 772 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. example discussing implications of uncorrected sentencing error)