United States v. Joshua Acoff
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Acoff pled guilty in the District of Connecticut to possessing five or more grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841.
- The district court accepted the plea but did not sentence under the mandatory minimum provision § 841(b)(1)(B).
- Instead, the court sentenced Acoff to 15 months, below the 60-month minimum, citing that the then-applicable 100-to-1 crack-powder ratio did not make sense.
- The government appealed, arguing the district court erred in sentencing below the statutory minimum.
- The government relied on the Supreme Court and Second Circuit authority limiting below-minimum sentencing and on changes effected by the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) of 2010.
- The FSA amended 21 U.S.C. § 841 and, via savings provisions, raised questions about retroactive application to pre-enactment offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSA applies retroactively to pre-enactment offenses | Acoff asserts FSA retroactivity lowers penalties for pre-FSA crimes. | Acoff is barred by the savings statute from retroactive effect; Diaz controls. | FSA not retroactive under the savings statute; sentences remain under pre-FSA law. |
| Whether the pre-FSA crack/powder disparity violates equal protection | Acoff challenges the disparity as irrational under the Fifth Amendment. | Disparity has been upheld under rational-basis scrutiny in prior circuit cases. | No equal-protection violation; rational-basis justification remains valid. |
| Whether the district court erred by imposing a sentence below the statutory minimum | Acoff argues the district court acted within authority by applying a non-minimum sentence due to policy concerns. | Government contends the court lacked authority to sentence below the minimum. | Judgment vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with the decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (judicial discretion subject to congressional control)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (limits on authority to vary below statutory minimums)
- United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930 (2d Cir. 2010) (savings statute governs retroactivity of FSA)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (prospective application of new rules; equal-protection concerns)
- United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995) (rejection of dialogic approach to retroactivity)
- United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (retroactivity of penalties; cited in Diaz context)
- Smart v. Ashcroft, 401 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005) (rational-basis review applicable to statutory disparities)