United States v. Crews
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134193
| W.D. Pa. | 2010Background
- Crews was convicted Feb 22, 2010, of possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- The statutory cap in effect at offense time (2006) triggered a 10-year mandatory minimum for the quantity involved.
- Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the mandatory minimum to 5 years and amended guideline ranges, effective Nov 1, 2010.
- The Sentencing Commission amended guidelines to reflect reductions; Crews’ guideline range would have been 262–327 months if retroactive, but his base sentence remained high due to career offender status.
- The district court, applying Jacobs, sentenced Crews on Dec 13, 2010 to 188 months with 5 years of supervised release, holding the Fair Sentencing Act not retroactive to his offense.
- Crews argued retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act should govern his sentence because his sentencing occurred after Nov 1, 2010, but the court found no express retroactivity provision and applied Jacobs to require prospective application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to Crews | Crews seeks retroactive application since sentenced after Nov 1, 2010 | Jacobs controls; no express savings for retroactivity; apply act prospectively | Retroactive application rejected; Fair Sentencing Act not retroactive under Jacobs |
| Whether the general savings statute 1 U.S.C. § 109 precludes retroactive effect | Douglas approach allows implied retroactivity despite no savings clause | Jacobs controls; no savings clause means no retroactivity | General savings statute does not permit retroactivity absent express savings provision; apply prospectively |
| Whether Marrero/Great Northern reasoning supports retroactivity | Savings clause implied retroactivity | No express savings; cannot read retroactivity via savings clause | Court distinguishes; no retroactivity under Jacobs; cannot rely on implicit savings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobs, 919 F.2d 10 (3d Cir. 1990) (saving statute governs retroactivity for penalties; no express retroactivity in amendment)
- United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2010) (Fair Sentencing Act not retroactive for defendants sentenced before its effective date)
- Marrero v. United States, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (savings statute preserves penalties and avoids abatement on repeal)
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452 (1908) (savings provisions interpreted to give effect to savings statute unless impliedly repealed)
- United States v. Douglas, 746 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D. Me. 2010) (court held retroactivity possible by implication; later questioned by Jacobs)