United States v. Marcus A Simmons
19-13386
11th Cir.Jul 26, 2021Background
- Michael Simmons, convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), moved for a reduced sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act; the district court denied relief and he appealed.
- The First Step Act makes certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive for "covered offenses."
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack-cocaine quantity thresholds that trigger the 10- and 5-year mandatory minimums for subsections (A) and (B) of § 841(b)(1), but did not change subsection (C).
- A "covered offense" under the First Step Act is a federal violation whose statutory penalties were modified by sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act and committed before August 3, 2010.
- The Supreme Court subsequently held that convictions under § 841(b)(1)(C) are not "covered offenses" because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the penalties for subsection (C).
- Because § 841(b)(1)(C) convictions are not covered offenses, the district court lacked statutory authority to reduce Simmons’s sentence under the First Step Act; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) is a "covered offense" under the First Step Act § 404 | Simmons: § 841(b)(1)(C) qualifies as a covered offense, entitling him to resentencing | Government/District Court: Fair Sentencing Act changed penalties only for (A) and (B); (C) was not modified and therefore is not covered | Held: Not a covered offense; Simmons ineligible for First Step Act relief (affirmed) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward variance if relief were available | Simmons: District court abused discretion in declining variance | Government: No relief available because § 841(b)(1)(C) is not covered; therefore authority lacking to consider variance | Held: Court did not reach abuse-of-discretion claim because it lacked authority to reduce the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (de novo review of statutory interpretation and First Step Act authority; denial of request reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (explaining Fair Sentencing Act changes to crack/powder sentencing thresholds)
- United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374 (11th Cir. 2012) (Fair Sentencing Act amendments not retroactive absent later statutory change)