United States v. Erick Hinds
713 F.3d 1303
11th Cir.2013Background
- Hinds was convicted by jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50+ grams of crack; offenses occurred in 2007–2008.
- First sentencing occurred January 5, 2010, with 65.19 grams of crack attributed for sentencing.
- On resentencing December 12, 2011, Hinds sought application of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) to reduce mandatory minimums.
- District court declined to apply the FSA, imposed 180 months (120-month minimum plus 60-month firearms term) under pre-FSA law.
- The government initially contended the FSA did not apply; later it agreed it should apply.
- Supreme Court later held in Dorsey that FSA's lower minimums apply to post-Act sentencing of pre-Act offenders, guiding this court to vacate and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FSA apply to Hinds's resentencing for pre-Act offenses? | Hinds argues FSA should apply. | The government argued FSA did not apply at resentencing. | Yes; FSA applies to post-Act resentencing of pre-Act offenses. |
| Does Dorsey control the applicability of FSA to de novo resentencing? | Dorsey supports applying FSA to resentencing of pre-Act offenses. | Earlier reasoning may treat resentencing differently, avoiding disparities. | Dorsey governs; FSA applies to resentencing as of the post-Act framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA applies to post-Act resentencing of pre-Act offenders)
- United States v. Veteo, 980 F.2d 697 (1993) (vacated sentence; resentencing concept)
- United States v. Grimes, 142 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1998) (general rule: sentence under law in effect at time of sentencing)
- United States v. Hudson, 685 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2012) (en banc; addresses FSA applicability on post-Act sentencing)