United States v. Dickey
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 474
| W.D. Pa. | 2011Background
- Dickey pleaded guilty to five crack cocaine counts and faced sentencing before the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) took effect.
- The FSA, enacted August 3, 2010, reduced crack penalties but did not expressly address retroactivity.
- Emergency amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines were issued by the Sentencing Commission on November 1, 2010.
- Dickey moved to have his pre-August 3, 2010 conduct sentenced under the FSA; the Government opposed retroactive application.
- The Court considered whether the FSA should apply to pre-enactment conduct in light of the general saving clause and emergency amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the Fair Sentencing Act apply retroactively? | Government argues the FSA should not apply to pre-August 3, 2010 conduct. | Dickey contends the general saving clause and retroactivity principles justify applying the FSA. | FSA is not retroactive; pre-enactment conduct remains under prior penalties. |
| Do emergency amendments override the general saving clause to make the FSA retroactive? | Government reliance on 'emergency authority' suggests retroactive alignment. | Dickey relies on emergent amendments to justify retroactivity. | Emergency amendments do not negate the general saving clause; no retroactive application. |
| Does the general saving clause 1 U.S.C. § 109 preserve pre-enactment penalties against retroactive application? | Government argues § 109 preserves penalties despite the FSA. | Dickey cites cases suggesting the FSA should override due to retroactivity concerns. | General saving clause controls; prior regime remains for pre-enactment conduct. |
| Is congressional intent or legislative history sufficient to render the FSA retroactive? | Dickey points to legislative history suggesting retroactivity. | Government and court should not infer retroactivity from legislative history absent text. | Text governs; legislative history cannot override the statute's silence on retroactivity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452 (1908) (general saving clause and retroactivity framework)
- United States v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (saving clause applies even with a later amending statute absent conflict)
- U.S. v. Jacobs, 919 F.2d 10 (3d Cir. 1990) ( Third Circuit expands saving clause scope to statutory amendments affecting penalties)
- United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (no express retroactivity in FSA; general saving clause applicable)