United States v. Rosario, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124636

Rosario pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50+ grams of cocaine base; sentenced to 76 months.
Court applied crack guideline reductions from the 2007 amendments; old range 135–168 months; amended range 108–135 months.
Government motion under § 5K1.1 yielded a shorter sentence than the old regime contemplated.
Rosario sought various reductions (clarification, crack amendment relief, FSA relief) in multiple filings; several were denied.
Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) became effective Aug. 3, 2010; Rosario argues retroactive application; court disagrees.
Court concludes Rosario was not sentenced under the old guidelines, and FSA retroactivity does not apply; § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the FSA retroactive to Rosario's sentence?	Rosario seeks retroactive relief under FSA.	FSA not retroactive to pre-Aug 3, 2010 sentences.	FSA not retroactive; not applicable.
Does § 3582(c)(2) authorize a reduction here?	Sentence based on a lowered range due to amendments.	Rosario was not sentenced based on a lowered range; § 3582(c)(2) does not apply.	Not applicable under § 3582(c)(2).
Do the 2010 emergency amendments affect Rosario's case?	Emergency amendments could reduce or alter counts/minima.	Amendments do not apply to Rosario; not retroactive to his sentence.	Not applicable to Rosario.

United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (FSA retroactivity and retroactive guidelines considerations)
United States v. Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (retroactivity of amendments under FSA)
United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (FSA retroactivity and related sentencing ranges)
United States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (application of retroactive amendments to sentencing)
United States v. Santiago, 566 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (theoretical application of amended guidelines to sentence)