United States v. Reevey
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25587
| 3rd Cir. | 2010Background
- Consolidated appeals challenge retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) to lower sentences.
- Reevey pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base; 10.8 grams involved; 5-year mandatory minimum applied at sentencing.
- Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5–20 grams of cocaine base; 5-year mandatory minimum applied.
- FSA amended the triggering quantity for the five-year minimum from 5 to 28 grams; Reevey/Williams would not trigger the minimum post-FSA.
- District Court sentenced Reevey and Williams to the five-year minimum; both appealed arguing FSA could reduce their sentences.
- Savings Statute 1 U.S.C. § 109 generally preserves penalties at the time of offense unless expressly provided otherwise; court must apply penalties in force when crimes were committed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSA applies retroactively to Reevey and Williams | Reevey/Williams argue FSA should apply. | Government argues Savings Statute bars retroactive application. | FSA not retroactive; Savings Statute bars applying the new minimums. |
| Whether mandatory minimums can be avoided under statutory exceptions | Reevey invokes § 3553(a) factors for below-minimum sentence. | Mandatory minimums binding; no statutory authority to depart unless exceptions apply. | Neither §3553(a) nor safety valve (§3553(f)) exceptions apply; five-year minimum required. |
| Whether Kellum-type authority allows below-minimum sentencing under FSA timing | Arguments rely on discretionary considerations. | Exceptions in Kellum do not apply here; FSA not retroactive. | Kellum’s narrow exceptions cannot override the existing mandatory minimum in these cases. |
| Whether the FSA changes could have applied if sentencing occurred after enactment | If retroactive, FSA would permit lower sentences. | Retroactivity not granted; penalties stay as of crime date. | FSA cannot be applied to Reevey and Williams because crimes committed before FSA and Savings Statute governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellum v. United States, 356 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2004) (§3553(a) does not authorize below-minimum sentences; two narrow exceptions exist.)
- Gunter v. United States, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (statutory minimums are mandatory, unlike advisory guidelines.)
- Santiago v. United States, 201 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 1999) (narrow departures under §3553(e) for substantial assistance.)
- Marrero v. United States, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (Savings Statute governs retroactivity of sentencing changes.)
- Jacobs v. United States, 919 F.2d 10 (3d Cir. 1990) (statutory amendments applied prospectively unless expressly retroactive.)
- United States v. Caldwell, 463 F.2d 590 (3d Cir. 1972) (penalties depend on the time of offense; sentencing dates differ can be anomalous.)