April 29, 2011
First Circuit thoughtfully talks through inapplicability of new FSA minimums on appeal
The First Circuit has a thoughtful discussion of its view that the new mandatory minimums of the Fair Sentencing Act are inapplicable to cases sentenced before the FSA became law and now on direct appeal. The ruling in US v. Goncalves, No. 10-1367 (1st Cir. April 29, 2011) (available here), includes these passages (with indicated emphasis in the original):
There is assuredly a policy reason favoring Goncalves' requested result: Congress did think that the superseded law was too harsh, so that it will be too harsh for Goncalves just as much as for those who committed the same offense after the FSA went into effect. Indeed, Goncalves suggests that the discrepancy is itself unconstitutional under equal protection principles; but discrepancies among persons who committed similar crimes are inescapable whenever Congress raises or lowers the penalties for an offense. Most often, the dividing line is the date of the crime....
In legal terms, the FSA is clearly inapplicable to this case; in human terms, the result is much less attractive but that is because the savings statute treats all such penalty reductions generically, and Congress did not expressly make the FSA an exception here. It could easily have done so; indeed, it remains free to do so now. More broadly, it could sensibly amend section 109 so that reductions in penalties for a pre-existing crime presumptively applied upon the enactment (or effective date) of the statute to anyone not yet sentenced or otherwise still on direct appeal.
Among other important points, the opinion includes this important footnote concerning what the panel describes as a "distinct" FSA pipeline issue:
At least one district court has held that provisions of the FSA, coupled with later amendments by the Sentencing Commission, do make the FSA's adjustments -- including a lessening of mandatory minimums -- applicable to defendants sentenced after the amendments became effective. United States v. Douglas, 746 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D. Me. 2010) (now pending in this circuit). Nothing in this decision is intended to resolve the distinct issues in that appeal.
April 29, 2011 at 06:58 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference First Circuit thoughtfully talks through inapplicability of new FSA minimums on appeal:
It looks as if Douglas is about to bite the dust. Sad. The idea that justice can be done by gaming the system, as suggested in Mark Agrast's memo of April 25, is as bad as Princess Beatrice's hat.
Posted by: margy | Apr 30, 2011 4:08:36 PM
"...the savings statute treats all such penalty reductions generically, and Congress did not expressly make the FSA an exception here. It could easily have done so; indeed, it remains free to do so now."
It seems to me that the Court's observation here is (1) unarguable and (2) dispositive.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 2, 2011 6:59:10 AM