Case ID: f-appx_482/html/0973-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-60981
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 27, 2012.
    Curtis Ivy, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gregory Scott Park, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This court affirmed the judgment of sentence, United States v. Hicks, 464 Fed.Appx. 347 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam), bound by United States v. Tickles, 661 F.3d 212, 214-15 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam), which held that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”) does not apply retroactively to a defendant who is sentenced after the effective date of the FSA but whose offense preceded that effective date. In United States v. Berry, No. 11-51050, — Fed.Appx. -, 2012 WL 5906899 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (per curiam), however, this court announced that Tickles had been overruled by Dorsey v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 2326, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012), which held that the more lenient penalties of the FSA apply to offenders who committed offenses before the effective date of the FSA but who were sentenced after that date.

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Dorsey. Hicks v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 221, — L.Ed.2d - (2012). We therefore VACATE the judgment of sentence and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Dorsey. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.