United States v. Santana
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9636
| S.D.N.Y. | 2011Background
- Defendants challenge whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) applies to pre-FSA crack/powder cocaine offenses in a large SDNY conspiracy case.
- Indictment covers conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine; core members allegedly supplied narcotics to distributors between Feb and Oct 2009.
- Pre-enactment, 1986 Act punished crack with harsher minimums; FSA raised thresholds and eliminated crack possession minimums, changing penalties.
- Questions arise about ripeness and standing for defendants at different stages (some pled guilty, some not yet convicted), and the role of contingent drug quantities.
- The court analyzes the interplay between the Saving Statute (1 U.S.C. § 109) and the FSA to decide if pre-FSA penalties may apply to pending sentences.
- The court ultimately denies the motions, applying the Saving Statute to preserve penalties in effect at the time of offense unless expressly overridden by Congress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Saving Statute apply to retroactively affect FSA penalties? | Government maintains Saving Statute preserves pre-FSA penalties. | Defendants contend FSA should apply retroactively or via necessary implication. | Saving Statute applies; retroactive relief not granted. |
| Does the FSA apply to offenses committed before Aug. 3, 2010 but not yet sentenced? | FSA amendments should govern all post-enactment sentences; urgent conformity via §8. | FSA intended retroactive effect for pending cases; widespread relief warranted. | No retroactive application; sentences governed by pre-FSA law for pre-enactment conduct. |
| Is there a constitutional or Equal Protection/Eleventh Amendment concern with prospective application? | Applying old penalties to pre-enactment conduct creates disparity; retroactivity is needed. | No constitutional violation; rational prospective application is permissible. | No constitutional violation; rational prospective approach stands. |
| Did Congress intend the FSA to apply to pending cases through §8 emergency guidelines or preamble? | §8 shows intent to conform guidelines to new penalties immediately for consistency. | No express retroactive command; saving statute controls, not §8 dicta. | No express retroactive command; Saving Statute governs retroactivity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz, 627 F.3d 930 (2d Cir. 2010) (FSA retroactivity contested; no express retroactive language; applying pre-FSA penalties.)
- Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (Saving Statute controls retroactivity of FSA.)
- Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010) (Saving Statute preserves penalties under old law.)
- Bell, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (Retroactivity depends on saving clause; no express retroactivity in FSA.)
- Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (General saving statute; abrogation of penalties unless expressly provided otherwise.)
- Bradley, 410 U.S. 605 (1973) (Saving Statute preserves sentences under pre-repeal law.)
- Ross, 464 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1972) (Savings clause preserves penalties for pre-enactment conduct; guidance on abatement.)
- Great Northern Ry. Co., 208 U.S. 452 (1908) (Saving Statute interpreted with express declaration or necessary implication.)