United States v. Yale Augustine
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6691
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- FSA 2010 reduced crack/powder disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1 and raised thresholds for 5- and 10-year minimums.
- Augustine was convicted (guilty plea) of crack cocaine distribution (83.2 g) in 2007 and sentenced to 121 months; the pre-FSA mandatory minimum was 120 months.
- The offense carried a 120-month mandatory minimum under 2006 law and a Guidelines range of 121–151 months.
- Augustine sought a § 3582(c)(2) reduction in 2011 based on post-FSA amendments lowering the Guidelines range to 70–87 months.
- The district court reduced only to the pre-FSA mandatory minimum (120 months) and denied broader retroactive relief; this appeal questions retroactivity under the General Savings Statute.
- The court reiterates that Baptist and Sykes foreclose retroactive application of the FSA to pre-enactment sentences; Dorsey dictum is acknowledged but not controlling for retroactivity here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do FSA mandatory minimums apply to pre-Act sentences in §3582(c)(2) cases? | Augustine argues yes due to retroactive appeal. | United States argues no; FSA not retroactive. | No; FSA not retroactive to pre-Act sentences. |
| Does the General Savings Statute govern retroactive application of the FSA? | Augustine relies on savings statute to override retroactivity. | Government relies on silence of FSA; no express intention to apply retroactively. | Yes; GSS forecloses retroactive application absent express congressional intent. |
| Does Dorsey compel retroactive application of FSA to pre-Act offenders? | Augustine uses Dorsey to support retroactivity. | Dorsey dictum does not require retroactivity for pre-Act offenders. | Dorsey dictum rejected as controlling; no retroactivity. |
| Are defendants pre-FSA eligible for any reduction under post-FSA Guidelines? | Post-FSA amendments create some reductions. | Can reduce to statutory minimums, not below pre-FSA minimums. | Yes; reductions to the lawful minimums are possible if Guidelines allow. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011) (retroactivity denied for pre-Act sentencing; General Savings Statute used)
- United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (FSA not retroactive to pre-Act defendants; relies on Baptist)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (S. Ct. 2012) (dictum on post-Act applicability; not controlling for pre-Act retroactivity)
- Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001) (precedent on stare decisis and panel decisions)
- Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (Supreme Court 1974) (general savings principle for retroactivity)