United States v. Carmelina Vera Rojas
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13677
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- This appeal concerns whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) applies to crack offenses committed before August 3, 2010 but sentenced after that date.
- Carmelina Vera Rojas pleaded guilty in May 2010 to conspiracy and distribution of crack cocaine and was slated for sentencing on August 3, 2010, the enactment date of the FSA.
- The district court continued sentencing to decide FSA applicability and ultimately sentenced Rojas in September 2010 under the prior law to ten years.
- The court of appeals sua sponte modified its prior opinion to adopt developments in First and Seventh Circuit law favoring FSA applicability to her case.
- The panel held that the FSA should apply to defendants not yet sentenced as of enactment, based on fairness, uniformity, and administrability, and remanded for re-sentencing.
- The opinion discusses the general savings statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109, and rejects the government’s view that the FSA should be barred by it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FSA apply to defendants not yet sentenced when the Act was enacted? | Rojas argues for retroactive application under FSA’s new 18:1 ratio. | Government argues savings statute prevents retroactive application and that FSA applies only to conduct after enactment. | Yes; FSA applies to sentencings occurring after enactment for pre-enactment conduct. |
| Does 1 U.S.C. § 109 savings clause bar application of the FSA to pending cases? | § 109 saves penalties under pre-existing law, so FSA cannot alter pending sentences. | § 109 preserves penalties and could bar retroactive changes. | No; § 109 does not save the older penalties for defendants not yet sentenced as of enactment. |
| Should courts apply FSA immediately to prevent absurd outcomes and align with congressional intent? | Congress intended immediate application to restore fairness. | Savings provision and case law prevent immediate retroactive lightening. | Yes; FSA applies to pending sentencings to halt unfair penalties. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (FSA amendments and guideline conformity considerations)
- United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011) (relevant date for FSA is the date of underlying conduct)
- United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (FSA retroactivity discussion; dicta in some contexts)
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1908) (savings statutes cannot override later clear congressional intent)
- Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1974) (savings clause scope and effect in repeal contexts)
- United States v. Kolter, 849 F.2d 541 (11th Cir. 1988) (general rule that new statutes apply to cases pending unless exceptions apply)
- United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1979) (avoid absurd results in statutory interpretation)