United States v. Thomas Fields
403 U.S. App. D.C. 49
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Fields was convicted of distribution and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and related firearm offenses; sentencing occurred before the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) of 2010.
- At trial, Fields and his wife suggested they sold only scented rocks; informant transactions and gun found at residence are described.
- The district court sentenced Fields to two concurrent 144-month terms plus 24 months for perjury, under a ten-year mandatory minimum for crack offenses.
- The court applied enhancements for firearm possession and obstruction of justice, and treated perjury as supporting a separate 24-month addition despite the mandatory minimum.
- Congress later enacted the FSA, reducing crack-powder disparity, but Fields’ sentence had already been imposed before enactment.
- Fields appealed, challenging retroactivity of the FSA, denial of a sentencing postponement, and the 24-month perjury addition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FSA apply retroactively to Fields? | Fields argues the FSA should apply because his case was pending on appeal when enacted. | The government and district court argue FSA does not apply to pre-Enactment sentences like Fields'. | FSA does not apply to Fields; retroactivity limited to post-enactment sentencing. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying postponement of sentencing until after the FSA passage? | Fields contends delaying would have yielded FSA benefits. | Court reasonably denied postponement given uncertainty of legislative action and pending appeal. | No abuse; denial was within discretion. |
| Was the 24-month perjury enhancement properly added to the mandatory minimum? | Fields asserts double-counting; perjury should not add beyond the mandatory minimum. | District court properly considered perjury as an aggravating factor; separate sentence permissible. | Two years for perjury affirmed; not improper given appellate standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA retroactivity guidance; disposes with pre-Act sentencing deviations)
- United States v. Bigesby, 685 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (FSA not applicable to pre-Enactment sentences)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (cocaine guidelines advisory; sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (use of uncharged/acquitted conduct in sentencing under constraint)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing; consideration of totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Lawrence, 662 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (pending legislation not a rigid basis to compel continuances)
- United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; variance context)
- United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978) (courts may consider defendant's false testimony in sentencing)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjurious testimony as sentencing factor)