United States v. Douglas
746 F. Supp. 2d 220
| D. Me. | 2010Background
- Douglas sold crack cocaine base totaling 113.1 grams in 2009 and pled guilty January 11, 2010.
- Pre-August 3, 2010 statute required a 10-year minimum for that quantity; act later increased thresholds to 28g (5-year) and 280g (10-year).
- Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 amended penalties to reduce crack/powder disparity; emergency guidelines were issued effective November 1, 2010.
- Question presented: whether the new, lower mandatory minimums apply to a defendant not yet sentenced for pre-enactment conduct.
- The government seeks application of the old, harsher minimum; Douglas seeks application of the Act’s amended penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Fair Sentencing Act apply to pre-sentencing offenders? | Government argues old minimums remain until sentence. | Douglas argues amended penalties should apply to future sentences. | Amended minimums apply to not-yet-sentenced offenders. |
| Does the Saving Clause block application of the new penalties to future sentences? | Saving Clause preserves harsher penalties for preexisting prosecutions. | Saving Clause does not compel maintaining old minimums for future sentences; no express repeal. | Saving Clause does not prevent applying new penalties to future sentences. |
| How do ex post facto concerns affect application? | Retroactivity worry about harsher penalties for conduct occurred before Act. | Act’s changes lighten penalties or apply to future sentences; no unconstitutional punishment. | No ex post facto issue; changes are not harsher for pre-enactment conduct when applied to future sentencing. |
| Is the 2010 Act's emergency guideline authority compatible with retroactive sentencing? | Guideline amendments apply to conduct before enactment via retroactive effect. | But guidelines apply based on sentencing date; old floors may prevail otherwise. | Congress’s emergency guideline amendments compel applying the amended guidelines to future sentencings after November 1, 2010. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (saving clause applies to ameliorative changes, with limits)
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452 (1908) (saving statute interpreted to give effect to legislative will)
- Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973) (saving clause and retroactivity considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Havener, 905 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1990) (punishment viewed as substantive, not just procedural)
- United States v. Rumney, 979 F.2d 265 (1st Cir. 1992) (application of saving clause in collateral contexts)