October 1, 2010
Eleventh Circuit summarily (in dicta?) asserts that FSA sentencing changes cannot impact pre-change crimes
A few weeks ago in this post, I noted that the Sixth Circuit at the end of a seemingly minor opinion in US v. Carradine, No. 08-3220 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010) (available here), addressed a major issue for any and all defendants hoping to get the an immediate benefit from the new crack sentencing provisions passed by Congress in the Fair Sentencing Act. And I complained that the Sixth Circuit's analysis struck me as a bit too cursory. Today, the Eleventh Circuit at the end of a seemingly minor opinion in US v. Gomes, No. 10-11225 (11th Cir. Oct. 1, 2010) (available here), seems to resolve a complex issue being litigated in district courts to a single sentence (of inaccurate? dicta?).
Specifically, here is the final sentence of a relatively short opinion in Gomes: "Moreover, because the FSA took effect in August 2010, after appellant committed his crimes, 1 U.S.C. § 109 bars the Act from affecting his punishment." As my post title and mention above suggests, I am not sure if this sentence is part of the holding or just dicta in Gomes, and i am also not sure if it is accurate. Nevertheless, I suspect all the folks litigating similar issues in district courts around the country will find this sentence important even if though it is opaque.
- Sixth Circuit summarily (and wrongly?) decides that sentencing changes in Fair Sentencing Act not applicable to pre-change crime
October 1, 2010 at 03:12 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eleventh Circuit summarily (in dicta?) asserts that FSA sentencing changes cannot impact pre-change crimes: