United States v. Sidney
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16421
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sidney pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1) on Dec. 11, 2009.
- FSA was enacted on Aug. 3, 2010, increasing the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses (50 g to 280 g).
- Sentencing occurred Jan. 13, 2011, after FSA enactment, with a 120-month term under the old mandatory minimum.
- Sidney moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the FSA’s penalties are retroactive and justify withdrawal under Rule 11(d)(2)(B).
- The district court denied withdrawal; the court applied the general savings statute, holding FSA not retroactive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the FSA retroactive for plea withdrawal purposes? | Sidney argues the FSA should apply retroactively to permit withdrawal. | The government argues FSA is not retroactive under controlling circuit law. | FSA is not retroactive; no withdrawal of plea warranted. |
| Does the savings statute apply to treat penalties as in force? | Sidney contends savings statute allows retroactive penalty application. | State that § 109 requires express repeal exemption; no express retroactivity here. | Savings statute applied; no retroactive penalties. |
| Do changes in crack/powder cocaine penalties alter the offense such that savings statute is inapplicable? | Argues the offense has changed and savings statute should apply protections. | The offense remains the same; penalties changed, not the offense element. | Offense remains same; penalties altered, still governed by savings statute. |
| Do Ex Post Facto or Eighth Amendment concerns arise from non-retroactivity? | Non-retroactivity could violate ex post facto and cruel/unusual punishment clauses. | No ex post facto issue; prior penalties not increased; equal protection not violated. | No Ex Post Facto or Eighth Amendment violation. |
| Should the Court apply fair/necessary implication to retroactivity under Marrero and Smith? | Argues for fair/necessary implication exempting repeal from savings statute. | Smith forecloses such implication; no express exemption in FSA. | No fair or necessary implication; FSA not retroactive. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (savings statute governs retroactivity without express retroactive language in FSA)
- United States v. Smith, 632 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2011) (no express retroactivity in FSA; savings statute applies)
- Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964) (amulet of retroactivity and legislative intent discussed in savings clause context)
- Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (general savings clause analyzed; no exemption inferred)
- United States v. Douglas, 746 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D. Me. 2010) (district court held retroactivity implications under FSA)
- United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2008) (mandatory minimums trump Guidelines when longer)