United States v. Watts
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37211
| D. Mass. | 2011Background
- Watts is charged in the district court with crack cocaine offenses and potential five-year mandatory minimum under prior law.
- Watts moves pretrial to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) to avoid the five-year mandatory minimum.
- The court discusses the historical crack-vs-powder sentencing disparity and congressional intent to remedy it via the FSA.
- The FSA amended mandatory minimums and reduced the crack/powder disparity from 100:1 to about 18:1, with retroactivity questions unresolved.
- Some courts hold the FSA retroactive for defendants awaiting sentencing; others limit retroactivity to those already sentenced.
- The court adopts the view that the FSA applies to defendants being sentenced after August 3, 2010, including those who committed crimes before the effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FSA apply to defendants awaiting sentencing? | Watts argues the FSA should apply under Saving Statute constraints. | Watts contends the FSA should govern sentencing for those awaiting sentencing after enactment. | Yes; the court applies the FSA and amended Guidelines to pending sentencing. |
| Retroactivity of the FSA to pending cases vs. already sentenced cases | The Saving Statute bars retroactive application to pending cases. | The FSA should apply to those not yet sentenced, given congressional intent and justice concerns. | FSA applies to defendants awaiting sentencing; not all courts are uniform, but Watts is favored. |
| Relation of the General Saving Statute to the FSA | Saving Statute prevents applying new, ameliorative penalties to ongoing prosecutions. | Fair implication of the FSA directly conflicts with § 109, superseding it for pending cases. | FSA supersedes Saving Statute as to pending sentencings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1974) (discusses Saving Statute and 'specific directive' conflict with § 109)
- Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2005) (plain import governs when later statute conflicts with earlier one)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (Guidelines advisory; district courts may vary within statutory constraints)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (discretion to reject or vary from Guidelines within certain contexts)
- Carrasco-Mateo v. United States, 389 F.3d 239 (1st Cir. 2004) (guidelines and timing concerns under ex post facto considerations)
- Tejada-Beltran v. United States, 50 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1995) (sentencing guidelines timing and application principles)