United States v. Brown
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20983
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brown pled guilty to three drug offenses on May 13, 2010; indicted October 6, 2009 on Counts I–III for crack, heroin, and crack distribution.
- District court sentenced October 4, 2010, two months after FSA enactment and two months before amended guidelines; court ignored FSA.
- Guideline range 292–365 months, ten years supervised release, fines $20,000–$8,000,000, and $300 special assessment.
- Sentence: 292 months on each count, concurrent, with eight years and six years supervised release; imposed $1,200 total fines ($300 per count) and a $300 special assessment; court said fines were mandatory.
- Brown appeals challenging (1) non-application of FSA at sentencing and (2) belief that $300 fines were mandatory minimums; district court’s FSA view is the basis of the appeal.
- Seventh Circuit held FSA not retroactive to Brown’s pre-enactment offenses and vacated the fines due to error in treating them as mandatory minimums, remanding for reassessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSA applies retroactively to Brown. | Brown argues FSA should apply since sentencing occurred after enactment. | FSA does not retroactively apply per Fisher/Holcomb. | FSA not retroactive; district court did not apply FSA. |
| Whether fines were correctly imposed as mandatory minimums. | Brown asserts no mandatory minimum fines exist for his counts. | District court believed fines were mandatory minimums. | Plain error; vacate fines and remand for reassessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011) (FSA not retroactive to pre-enactment offenses when sentencing occurs after enactment)
- United States v. Holcomb, 657 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2011) (en banc; fisher/Holcomb stance reaffirmed)
- United States v. McMath, 559 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2009) (mistake of law in sentencing can satisfy plain error)
- United States v. Jaderany, 221 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2000) (reversals when misapplied guidelines or legal standards)
- United States v. Riley, 493 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2007) (plain error review for forfeited sentencing issues)
- United States v. Jumah, 599 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2010) (remand proper when sentence based on miscalculation of guidelines)