United States v. Trentavius Arline
20-12229
| 11th Cir. | Dec 1, 2021Background
- Trentavius Arline was convicted in 2010 of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a).
- He sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act § 404(b), arguing § 860(a) incorporates § 841(b) “as a whole,” making his offense a "covered offense" because § 841(b) penalties were amended by the Fair Sentencing Act.
- § 860(a) prescribes twice the maximum punishment authorized by § 841(b) and a one-year mandatory minimum (unless § 841(b) imposes a greater minimum).
- The Supreme Court in Terry v. United States held that whether an offense is "covered" depends on whether the Fair Sentencing Act altered the penalties tied to the specific elements of the offense; § 841(b)(1)(C) offenses were not covered because their penalties were unchanged.
- The district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed, concluding Arline’s § 860(a) offense was tied to § 841(b)(1)(C) (an unmodified penalty) and thus not a covered offense under the First Step Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) is a “covered offense” under the First Step Act § 404(b) because § 860 references the penalties in § 841(b) generally | Arline: § 860 incorporates § 841(b) as a whole, so FSA’s changes to § 841(b) make § 860 offenses covered | Government: § 860 offenses must be analyzed element-by-element; Arline’s offense is the § 841(b)(1)(C) variant (no quantity element), which the Fair Sentencing Act did not change | Held: Not covered; § 860(a) creates discrete offenses tied to the distinct § 841(b) subsections; Arline’s offense corresponds to § 841(b)(1)(C) and is not eligible for First Step Act relief |
| Whether the added location element (within 1,000 feet of public housing) or sentencing facts (no quantity alleged in indictment) alter the Terry analysis | Arline: Location and cross-reference to § 841(b) mean the FSA’s penalty changes apply | Government: Location element and one-year minimum/doubled maximum do not change that the relevant offense’s elements lack a quantity trigger that FSA modified | Held: Terry’s element-based approach applies; location and sentencing specifics do not convert a § 841(b)(1)(C)-type offense into a covered offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021) (First Step Act coverage hinges on whether Fair Sentencing Act altered penalties tied to the offense’s elements)
- United States v. Segarra, 582 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2009) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (de novo review of district court authority to modify term of imprisonment)