United States v. Willie Barrett
691 F. App'x 722
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Willie Barrett was sentenced in 2005 for a federal crack cocaine offense and later had his supervised release revoked.
- At revocation, the district court treated Barrett’s prior crack offense as a Class A felony under the pre–Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) regime.
- Barrett argued on appeal that the FSA’s reduced penalties should reclassify his prior offense as a Class B felony, lowering the policy‑statement range and statutory maximum for revocation.
- Barrett did not advance this argument in the district court, so the Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error.
- The court considered whether the FSA applies retroactively to pre‑Act sentences and whether a revocation sentence is governed by the law as it existed at the original sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced penalties apply to supervised‑release revocation for an original pre‑FSA sentence | Barrett: FSA should reclassify his prior crack offense as Class B, reducing applicable revocation range and statutory maximum | Government: FSA does not apply retroactively to offenders sentenced before the FSA; revocation looks to law at original sentencing | The FSA does not apply; district court correctly treated the prior offense as Class A for revocation sentencing |
| Standard of review for Barrett’s unpreserved argument | Barrett: N/A (raised on appeal only) | Government: Plain‑error review applies because issue was not raised below | Court applied plain‑error review and found no error |
| Whether a revocation sentence relates back to the original offense’s legal classification | Barrett: N/A (argues reclassification should control) | Government: Revocation sentence relates back to original offense; court must use law in effect at original sentencing | Court held revocation sentencing looks to the underlying offense as it existed at original sentencing |
| Whether the sentence was within statutory limits and reasonable | Barrett: Contends statutory maximum should be lower under FSA | Government: Sentence within original statutory limits; not plainly unreasonable | Court affirmed revocation sentence as within limits and not plainly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (FSA’s lowered mandatory minimums apply to post‑Act sentencing of pre‑Act offenders)
- United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.) (FSA not retroactive to initial sentencing before Act)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (revocation sentence relates back to the original offense and is limited to the original supervised‑release term)
- United States v. Turlington, 696 F.3d 425 (3d Cir.) (district court looks to the underlying offense as it existed at original sentencing when setting revocation sentence)
- Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (standard for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.) (affirming revocation sentence if within statutory limits and not plainly unreasonable)