United States v. Baptist
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11056
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Baptist pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute and to distribution of at least five grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
- District court imposed a five-year mandatory minimum under the pre-FSA regime, which the judge criticized as unjust and racially discriminatory in light of the crack/powder disparity.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) was enacted August 3, 2010 to reduce the crack/powder disparity and alter minimums, applicable to conduct after enactment.
- FSA amended 21 U.S.C. § 841 to require 28 grams for a five-year minimum and 280 grams for a ten-year minimum, up from 5 and 50 grams respectively under the old regime.
- Baptist’s transaction and sentence occurred before the FSA’s enactment; he sought retroactive application of the FSA to reduce his pre-enactment sentence.
- The question is whether the pre-enactment sentence may be reduced under the FSA despite the General Savings Statute and retroactivity principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act to pre-enactment sentences | Baptist urges retroactive relief under the FSA | No retroactive application; FSA applies prospectively | FSA does not apply retroactively to pre-enactment sentences |
| Role of the General Savings Statute in retroactivity | General Savings Statute would not bar retroactive amelioration | GSS blocks retroactive application of ameliorative laws to pre-enactment conduct | GSS bars retroactive application of the FSA to Baptist’s pre-enactment sentence |
| Constitutional challenges to the pre-FSA five-year minimum | Crack/powder disparity violated Fifth/Eighth/Fourteenth Amendments | Circuit precedent forecloses challenges to pre-FSA minimums | Constitutional challenges foreclosed; no remedy outside legislative action |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoyt v. United States, 879 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1989) (Cruel and unusual punishment challenges to pre-FSA minimums rejected)
- Harding v. United States, 971 F.2d 410 (9th Cir. 1992) (Equal protection challenge to crack-powder disparity rejected)
- Dumas v. United States, 64 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1995) (Disparity challenged under Fifth Amendment rejected)
- Avila-Anguiano v. United States, 609 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (General Savings Statute applied to pre-enactment sentencing)
- Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (Supreme Court 1974) (General Savings Statute bars retroactive amelioration absent express intent)
- Acoff v. United States, 634 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2011) (Discussion of retroactivity and FSA implications)
- Bullard v. United States, 645 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (Among circuits declining retroactive application of FSA to pre-enactment conduct)
- Goncalves v. United States, 642 F.3d 245 (1st Cir. 2011) (Retroactivity analysis of FSA in pre-enactment cases)
- Doggins v. United States, 633 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2011) (Retroactivity discussions of FSA)
- Reevey v. United States, 631 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2010) (Pre-enactment sentencing and FSA considerations)
- Lewis v. United States, 625 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2010) (Circuits addressing retroactivity of FSA)
- Brewer v. United States, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (Retroactivity discussions of the Fair Sentencing Act)
- Bell v. United States, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (Retroactivity scope of FSA for pre-enactment sentences)
- Gomes v. United States, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (Per curiam; retroactivity considerations)
- Carradine v. United States, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (Retroactivity framework discussions)