United States v. Smith, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1928

Smith was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine based on evidence from controlled buys and multiple witnesses linking him to a broad drug distribution operation.
The district court imposed a life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on the quantity of crack involved and Smith's prior felony drug convictions.
After trial, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, increasing the crack quantity threshold for a life sentence from 50 to 280 grams.
Smith moved for relief seeking application of the FSA to his pending case; the parties submitted supplemental briefs addressing retroactivity.
Key trial evidence included Pickett’s controlled buy, apartment 11 evidence, and testimony identifying Smith as the drug source and participant in ongoing crack distribution.
Smith raised six constitutional and evidentiary challenges, all of which the court addressed before affirming the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the conspiracy evidence	Smith argues minimal evidence; he contends only presence or proximity to deals.	Smith contends the evidence fails to show his participation in a conspiracy beyond mere presence.	Evidence supported conspiracy; more than mere presence; sufficient to convict.
Right to compulsory process	Robinson's testimony would rebut Williams's credibility and assist Smith.	Request was untimely and cumulative; would not materially aid defense.	No error; testimony would be cumulative and untimely.
Right to confront adverse witnesses	Lab report is testimonial evidence subject to confrontation.	Stipulated admission of the report avoids Confrontation Clause concerns.	Stipulation rendered objection moot; admission not error.
Retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act	FSA should apply to pending cases to reduce penalties.	Savings statute does not permit application to pending cases absent express language.	Savings statute applies, and FSA’s penalties apply; court applied the FSA framework.
Cruel and unusual punishment	Life sentence under prior law is unconstitutional as applied to Smith.	Sentence is consistent with precedent upholding life-term penalties for crack offenses.	Life sentence affirmed; no Eighth Amendment violation.

Hernandez v. United States, 569 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo sufficiency review standard)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (compulsory process right is not absolute)
Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2004) (test for admissibility of excluded evidence favors defendant when material and favorable)
Sparkman, 500 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2007) (timeliness and importance of subpoena witness standard)
Ladoucer, 573 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidence credibility and cumulative testimony considerations)
Martin v. United States, 989 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1993) (penalties and savings statute considerations)
Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (general savings statute doctrine)
Blue Sea Line, 553 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1977) (exemption from savings statute when changing substantive liability)
Bell v. United States, 624 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2010) (FSA applicability to pending cases discussion)
United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (savings statute controls retroactivity of penalties)