FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 66 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 02 36 -AJ- 2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us CARM ELINA VERA ROJAS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 6, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W e su a s po nt e m od ify ou r pr ev io us op in io n i n thi s ap pe al to refl ectrece nt de ve lo pm en ts inth e law of t he Fir stan d S ev en thCir cu it s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v.Fis he r , 63 5 F .3d33 6, 3 40 (7t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Do ug la s , No. 1 0- 23 41 ,

20 11 W L 21 20 16 3 (1 stCir . May 31 , 20 11 ). The is su e in th is ap pe al is whet he r th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 (“ FSA”), Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2 (2 01 0) , app li es to de fen da nt s wh o co m m it te d c rackco cai ne off

en se s b efo re Au gu st3, 2 01 0, the da te of i ts
en act m en t, b utwho are s en te nc edth erea fte r. W e co nc lu de th atitdo es . InMay 201 0, Ca rm el in a Vera R ojas pl ead edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f
co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss with t he in te ntto di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd84 1( a)(1 ), an d t wo co un ts of di st rib ut in g 5 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Her
se nt en ci ng was s ch edul edfor Aug us t 3 , 20 10 , whi ch as i t s o h ap pe ne d, was th e da te on whi ch Pres id en t Ob am a si gn edth e FSA i nt o l aw. The d is tri ctco urt gr an te d t he pa rti es a co nt inua nc e to de te rm in e whe th er VeraRo jas s ho ul d b e se nt en cedun de r th e FSA. Afte r co ns id eri ng th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts , th e d is tri ct
co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the FSA sh ou ldno t ap pl y to Vera Ro

jas’s o ffen se s; in Sep te m be r 20 10 , th e co urt s en te nc edVera Ro jas t o t eny ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. On ap pe al , Vera Ro

jas ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin refu si ng to ap pl y th e FSA t o h er s en te nc e. Becaus e sh e h adno t yet be ensen te nc edwhen th e FSA was en act ed , Vera Ro jas b el ie ve s t ha t s he sh ou ldbe ne fitfro m th e FSA’s
2pr ov is io n ra is in g t he qu an ti ty of crac k c oc ai ne requi redto tri gg er a t en -y ear

m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e. Furth er, VeraRo jas co nt en ds th atth e FSA fa ll s withi n re co gn iz edex cep ti on s t o t he ge ne ral sav in gs st atut e, 1 U.S.C. § 10 9. Rel y in g i n l arg e p arton th e g en eral sav in gs st atut e, th e g ov ern m en t co nt en ds th at Co ng res s’s o m is si on of a n e xp res s re tro act iv it y pro vi si on requi res th atth e FSA b e ap pl ie d o nl y

to cri m in al co nduc t o ccu rri ng aft er i ts Aug us t 3 , 20 10 , ena ctm en t. W e co nc lu de th atth e FSA ap pl ie s t o d efen da nt s l ik e Vera R ojas who ha d
no t yet be ensen te nc edby the da te of t he FSA’s en act m en t. The in te res t i n ho no rin g c le ar Co ng res si on al in te nt , as wel l as pri nc ip le s o f fai rn es s, u ni fo rm it y , an d a dm in is trabi li ty, ne ces si ta te ou r co nc lu si on . Accor di ng ly, we rev ers e an d
rem an d t o t he di stric t co urt fo r re-s en te nc in g. DISCUSS IO N W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er the FSA ap pl ie s t o de fen da nt s wh o h adno t b eensen te nc edby the da te of t he FSA’s en act m en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol in Co rp . , 10 7 F .3d15 06 , 15 09 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). 1. Th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 20 10 The pre am

bl e to th e FSA d es cri be s i t as “ [a]n ActTo [s ic ] res to re fa irn es s t o Fed eral co cai ne sen te nc in g.” The FS A so ug htto reduc e th e d is pa rit y be twee n fed eral cri m in al pe na lt ie s fo r cra ckco cai ne an d p owd er co cai ne off en se s b y 3lo weri ng th e g ram -p en al ty rati o fr om 10 0: 1 t o 1 8: 1. Uni te d Sta tes v. Do ug la s , 74 6 F. Supp . 2d22 0, 2 22 , 22 4 (D. M e. 20 10 ), af f’d , 20 11 WL 21 20 16 3 (1 stCir . May 31 , 20 11 ). To thi s en d, the FSA am en de d the Co nt ro ll edSubs tanc es Act an d Co nt ro ll edSubs ta nc es Im po rt a ndExp ort Actby rais in g t he dru g qua nt it ie s requi redto tri gg er m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc es . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Bel l , 62 4 F.3 d 8 03 , 81 4 (7 th Cir . 20 10 ). Furth er, the FSA p ro vi de d t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on with t he em erg en cy au th or it y to pro m ul ga te all ne ces sa ry
am en dm en ts to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es withi n 9 0 d ay s o f th e FSA’s Au gu st3, 20 10 , ena ctm en t. FSA § 8, Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 . Spe ci fic al ly, th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on was c ha rg edwith “ m ak [in g] su ch co nf orm in g a m en dm en ts to th e Fed eral sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s as th e Co m m is si on de te rm in es ne ces sary to ach ie ve co ns is te nc y

with o th er g ui de li ne pro vi si on s an d app li cab le law.” Id

. The
co ns eque ntam en dm en ts to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es be cam e eff ect iv e n o l at er th anNov em

be r 1, 2 01 0. Und er the FSA, a te n- y ear m an da to ry m in im um ap pl ie s t o fi rs t-t im e tra ffi ck in g o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng 28 0 g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne , whi le a fi ve y ear m an da to ry

m in im um ap pl ie s t o fi rs t-t im e tr affi ck in g o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng 28 gr am s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne . 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ), (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Thu s, the FSA am en de d t he Ant i-Drug Act o f 19 86 to lo wer the m an da to ry 4m in im

um sen te nc e fo r fi rs t-t im e tr affi ck in g o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng be twee n 5 0 a nd 28 0 g ram s o f cra ck

co cai ne fro m

ten y ears to fiv e y ears . Co mpa re § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ) (2 00 6) , wi th § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ) (2 01 0) . The FSA i s s il en t as to whe th er i t ap pl ie s t o a ll cri m in al se nt en ci ng s tak in g p la ce af

te r it s en act m en t o r, co nv ers el y , to on ly crim in al co nduc t oc cu rri ng aft er i ts en act m en t. The di stric t co urt s en te nc edVera Ro jas i n S ep te m

be r 20 10 forco ns pi rin g with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 71 .8 g ram s o f crac k c oc ai ne , am on g o th er o ffen se s. If t he
co urt h adsen te nc edVera Ro jas u nd er the FSA, he r of fen se s wo ul d h av e b een in su ffi ci en t t o t rig ge r th e te n- y ear m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc in g p ro vi si on . For th e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atVera Ro jas’s s en te nc e is subjec t t o t he FSA’s fi ve -y ear m an da to ry m in im um pro vi si on . 2. Ca se La w Vera Ro jas ar gu es th atth is Co urt’s s ta te m en t i n Uni te d Sta tes v. Go mes , 62 1 F .3d13 43 , 13 46 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m)—“ be cau se th e FSA t oo k e ffec t in Aug us t 2 01 0, af

te r ap pe ll an t co m

m it te d h is cri m es , [th e g en eral sav in gs st atut e] ba rs th e Actfro m

affe ct in g h is pu ni sh m en t” —was m erel y di ct a an d i s n ot
co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt . W e n eedno t co ns id er thi s ar gu m en t b ecau se , inan y ev en t, Gomes do es no t ap pl y

he re. The reco rdrev eal s t ha t Go m es was i nd ic te d i n J ul y 20 09 an d s en te nc edin Marc h 2 01 0—ne arl y fiv e m on th s b efo re the FSA was
5si gn edin to law. Th e is su e b efo re the Co urt the refo re was whethe r th e FSA

ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y

to li gh te n t he de fen da nt ’s exist in g sen te nc e. Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s a d iff eren t i ss ue . Vera Ro

jas’s ci rcu m st an ces requi re th atwe de te rm in e whe th er the FSA ap pl ie s t o ade fen da ntwho ha d n otbe en se nt en cedwhen th e la w was en act ed . The g ov ern m en t ci te s p ub li sh edop in io ns fro m th e Si xt h, Se ve nt h, Ei gh th , andTent h C irc ui ts , os te ns ib ly in s up po rt o f it s pr op os it io n t ha t “ [e]very

cir cu itco urt t o h av e ad dr es se d the is su e h as co nc lu de d th atth e FSA m ay

no t b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y .” Lik e Gomes , each of t ho se cas es in vo lv eda de fen da ntwho ha d b een ch arg ed , con vi ct ed , andsen te nc edbe fo re the effe ct iv e d at e o f th e FSA; th os e d efen da nt s wer e arg ui ng forth e fi rs t t im e o n ap pe al th atth e FSA s ho ul d app ly retro act iv el y to a pr ev io us ly im

po se d s en te nc e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C

ar ra di ne , 62 1 F .3d57 5, 5 77 –7 8, 5 80 (6t h C ir. 2 01 0) (d efen da ntin di ct edin Ju ly 200 5 a ndsen te nc edinJan ua ry 20 08 ); Bell , 62 4 F .3dat 81 4 (S ev en th Cir cu itst at in g t ha t “ [i]f Bel l wer e se nt en cedto da y un de r th e FSA, hi s d is tri bu ti on of 5 .69 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne wou ldbe in su ffi ci en t t o t rig ge r th e
m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc in g p ro vi si on s” ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ewe r , 62 4 F .3d 90 0, 9 09 n.7 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (st at in g tha t the de fen da ntfir stsubm it te d alet te r reque st in g re -s en te nc in g u nd er the FSA o n Au gu st27 , 20 10 , wher e th e rec or d in di cat es th atde fen dantwas o rig in al ly sen te nc edin Nov em be r 20 09 ); Uni te d
6St at es v. Lewis , 62 5 F .3d12 24 , 12 28 (10 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ [The FSA] is n ot ,

ho wev er, ret ro act iv e an d t hu s d oe s n otap pl y to th is cas e. It d oe s, o n t he ot he r ha nd , rel eg at e th is cas e to a rel at iv el y sh ort s he lf- li fe, i na sm

uc h a s d efen da nt s be in g s en te nc ed

he nc ef or th wil l b e se nt en cedun de r a d iff eren t ap pl ic ab le rat io .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). But

see Uni te d Sta tes v. Fish er , 63 5 F .3d33 6, 3 40 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th atth e rel ev an t d at e fo r th e FSA “ is th e d at e o f th e u nd erl y in g cri m in al co nduc t, n otth e d at e o f se nt en ci ng ,” bu t s ta ti ng , “ [w]e hav e sym pa th y for th e two de fen da nt s h ere, wh o l os t o n atem po ral rol l o f th e co sm ic di ce an d wer e se nt en cedun de r a s tru ctur e whi ch ha s n ow b een reco gn iz edas u nf ai r”). W e d o n otdi sa gr ee wi th ou r si st er ci rcu it s i n o ne m ajorsen se —ab se nt fu rth er l eg is la ti ve act io n d ire ct in g o th erwi se , th e g en eral sav in gs st atut e p rev en ts a de fen da ntwho was s en te nc edpri orto th e en act m en t o f th e FSA fro m be ne fit ti ng fro m retro act iv e ap pl ic at io n. Furth er, we s hare i n t he well -rea so ne d v ie w of t he Fi rs t Ci rcu itth atCo ng res s i nt en de d fo r th e FSA t o app ly im m ed ia te ly. Se e Dou gl as , 20 11 W L 21 20 16 3, at*4 (“ It s eem s unr eal is ti c to supp os e th atCo ng res s st ro ng ly des ire d t o p ut18 :1 gu id el in es in effe ctby N ov em be r 1 e ve n fo r cri m es co m m it te d b efo re the FSA b utba lk edat g iv in g the same defe nd an ts th e b en efi t o f th e n ewly enac te d 1 8: 1 m an da to ry m in im um s.”)
. 3. Th e S

av in gs Cla us e o

f 1 U.S.C. §

10 9
7The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atCo ng res s d idno t i nt en d fo r th e FSA t o app ly to

de fen da nt s l ik e Vera R ojas , as aco nt rary con cl us io n wo ul d re nd er the ge ne ral
sa vi ng s s ta tu te , 1 U.S.C. § 10 9, a n ul li ty. Vera Ro jas, o n t he ot he r ha nd , con te nd s th at§ 1 09 do es no t ap pl y to th e FSA, b ecau se sen te nc in g s om e d efen da nt s u nd er th e o ldst atut e wou ldfru st rat e th e cl earl y ev in cedgo al s o f Co ng res s. 1 The rel ev an t cl au se of t he ge ne ral sav in gs st atut e p ro vi de s: The rep eal of an y st atut e sh a l l no t ha ve th e effe ct to rel eas e or ex ti ng ui sh an y pe na lt y . . . in cu rred un de r su ch st atut e, u n l e s s th e rep eal in g Act sh al l so ex pr es sl y pr ov id e, an d s u ch st atut e sh al l be tre at ed a s st il l rem ai ni ng in fo rce fo r th e pu rp os e of su st ai ni ng an y pr op er acti on or pr os ecu ti on fo r th e en fo rcem en t of su ch pe na lt y . . . . § 1 09 . Stat edan ot he r way , if § 10 9 app li es to th e FSA, the FSA can no t “ rel eas e o r ex ti ng ui sh ” th e p en al ty V era R ojas wou ldhave rece iv edun de r th e o ldve rs io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Fo r th e rea so ns expl ai ne d b el ow, we co nc lu de th at § 1 09 do es no t “ sa ve ” th e o ld er m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e fo r a d efen da ntwho ha d n otbe ensen te nc edby the da te th e FSA was en act ed
. Ove r a h un dr edy ears ag o, the Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the ge ne ral
sa vi ng s s ta tu te “ can no t ju st ify a di sr eg ardof t he wil l o f Co ng res s as m an ife st ed , Citi ng United States v. Kolter , 849 F.2d 541, 544 ( 11th Cir. 1988), Vera Rojas also 1 argues that “the FSA did not rele ase or exti nguish the penalty

for c rac k coca ine,” but that it mere ly “re define d the classe s of per sons to whom the minimum mandatories a pply to remedy

the defe cts in the 1986 law.” The Seve nth Circuit rece ntly reje cted the sa

me ar gument. See B ell , 624 F.3d at 814–15. Howeve r, weneed not c onsider it here beca use we resolve V era

Rojas’s appea l on other grounds. 8ei th er ex pr es sl y or b y ne ces sa ry

im pl ic at io n, i n asubs eque nten act m en t.” Gre at N. Ry. Co . v. Uni te d Sta tes , 20 8 U.S. 4 52 , 46 5 (1 90 8) ; se e a ls o Warde n, Lewisb ur g Pen it en ti ar

y v. Ma rr er o , 41 7 U.S. 6 53 , 65 9 n .10 (19 74 ) (“ [O]nly if [th e rep eal in g s ta tu te ] can be sai d b y fai r im pl ic at io n o r ex pr es sl y

to co nf li ctwith § 1 09 wou ldth ere b e rea so n t o h ol d t ha t [t he rep eal in g s ta tu te ] supe rs ed ed § 1 09 .”). In de ed , th e Supr em e Co urt h as “ m ad e cl ear” th ata savi ng s p ro vi si on

“ can no t n ul li fy

th e u na m bi gu ou s i m

po rt o f a s ub se qu en t s ta tu te . . . . A subs eque nt Co ng res s . . . m ay

ex em ptit se lf f ro m [ex pr es s- pr ov is io n] requi rem en ts by ‘ fai r im pl ic at io n.’” Lo ckh ar t v. Un it ed St at es , 54 6 U.S. 1 42 , 14 8 (2 00 5) (Sca li a, J.,
co nc urrin g) . Whe re Co ng res s’s i nt en t fo r a n ew st atut e to supe rs ed e a p rio r on e is cl ear, i t i s n otrequi redto us e “ m ag ic al ” wor ds to do so . Id

. at14 5 (maj or it y op in io n)
. The go ve rn m en t ci te s Mar re ro forth e p ro po si ti onth at§ 1 09 bars th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e FSA t o Ver a Ro jas’s ca se . There , th e Supr em e Co urt ap pl ie d § 1 09 to rejectth e cl ai m

th ata ne w st atut e lo os en in g p aro le eli gi bi li ty sho ul d b e ap pl ie d t o t ho se who co m m it te d t he ir c rimes be fo re the ne w st atut e’s en actm en t. 41 7 U.S. at65 9– 64 . But Marre ro is no t o n- po in t: th e rep eal in g s ta tu te in th atcas e ha d i ts own sav in gs claus e th atsp eci fic al ly sou gh t t o p res erv e th e h ars he r pe na lt y fo r pr os ecu ti on s i ni ti at edbe fo re i ts effec ti ve da te . Id

. at65 6 n .4.
9Unl ik e th e st atut e atis su e in Mar re ro , th e FSA i s s il en t as to whet he r th e

ha rs he r m an da to ry

m in im um s s ho ul d b e p res erv edforde fen da nt s wh os e cas es were p en di ng on th e d at e o f it s en act m en t. Ho wev er, the ne ces sa ry an d fa ir im pl ic at io n o f th e FSA i s tha t Co ng res s i nt en de d t he Act t o app ly to al l
se nt en ci ng s g oi ng forward , bec au se a co nt rary con cl us io n wo ul d b e lo gi cal ly in co ns is te ntan d wo ul d a ch ie ve ab su rdres ul ts : Th e Sen te nc in g R efo rm Act o f 19 84 ex pr es sl y

st at es th atth e g ov ern in g S en te nc in g Gu id el in es are tho se in effe ct
on th e d ay

a de fen da ntis sen te nc ed . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(4 )(A)(i i). Bu t u nd er the go ve rn m en t’s ra ti on al e, co urts co ul d s en te nc e Vera R ojas an d o th er d efen da nt s i n he r po si ti on un de r th e o ld , hi gh er m an da to ry m in im um s u nt il Aug us t 3 , 20 15 , whe n the fiv e-year ge ne ral st atut e o f li m it at io ns wou ldrun . Con gr es s co ul d n ot ha ve in te nd edth is res ul t. By gr an ti ng th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on th e em erg en cy au th or it y to am en d the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es by N ov em be r 1, 2 01 0, Co ng res s ne ces sa ril y

in di cat edit s i nt en t fo r th e FSA t o app ly im m ed ia te ly. To as k d is tri ct
co urts to co ns id er the da te th e o ffen se was c omm it te d t o d et erm in e th e st atut ory
m in im um , bu t the da te of s en te nc in g t o d et erm in e th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, wou ldlea d to anin co ng ru ou s re su ltth atis in co ns is te ntwith C on gr es si on al in te nt . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ruthe rf

or d , 44 2 U.S. 5 44 , 55 2 (1 97 9) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwhen in te rp ret in g st atut es , exc ep ti on s m ay

be im pl ie d “ whe re es se nt ia l t o p rev en t ‘abs ur d re su lt s’ or

10co ns eque nc es ob vi ou sl y at v ari an ce wi th th e p ol ic y of t he en act m en t as a who le ”). Wha t i s m or e, su ch anin te rp ret at io n o f th e FSA wo ul d ru n a fo ul of the po li ci es
m ot iv at in g i ts en actm en t an d re nd er i ne ffec tu al Co ng res s’s ex pr es s d ire ct iv e to th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Se e FSA, Prea m bl e & § 8, Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 (st at in g th at“ th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on sh al l . . . m ak e su ch co nf orm in g
am en dm en ts to th e Fed eral sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s as th e Co m m is si onde te rm in es ne ces sa ry to ac hi eve c on sist en cy wi th
. . . ap pl ic ab le la w ” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). Mo reo ve r, with re sp ectto § 1 09 , we hav e st at edina so m ewh atsi m il ar co nt ex t tha t “ [t]he ge ne ral rul e is th ata ne w st atut e sh ou ldap pl y to cas es pe nd in g on th e d at e o f it s en act m en t u nl es s m an ife stin jus ti ce wo ul d re su ltor t he re i s a st atut ory di rect iv e o r le gi sl at iv e h is to ry to th e co nt rary.” Uni te d Sta tes v. K ol te r , 84 9 F .2d54 1, 5 43 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (ci ti ng , am on g o th er ca se s, Bra dl ey v. S ch . Bd. of Rich mon d , 41 6 U.S. 6 96 (19 74 )). Co ng res s s ta te d t ha t i t p as se d t he FSA to

“ res to re fa irn es s t o F ed eral co cai ne sen te nc in g.” Pream bl e, FSA, Pub. L. No. 1 11
- 22 0. As on e d is tri ctco urt ap tl y st at edin anop in io n t ho ro ug hl y di sc us si ng th is is su e, “ wha t p os si bl e rea so n c ou ldth ere b e to wantjud ge s t o co nt in ue to im po se ne w sen te nc es th atare n ot‘ fai r’ ove r th e n ex t fi ve y ears whi le th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns run s? ” Dou gl as , 74 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 2 29
.

11The ne ces sa ry in fere nc e is th atth e wil l o f Co ng res s was forth e FSA t o h al t
un fai r se nt en ci ng pra ct ic es imm ed ia te ly. Se e Gre at N. Ry. Co. , 20 8 U.S. at46 5. W e th eref

or e h ol d t ha t the ge ne ral sav in gs st atut e can no t b ar ap pl ic at io n o f th e FSA to sen te nc in gs co nduc te d a fte r it s Au gu st3, 2 01 0, en act m en t. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d Ver a Ro

jas’s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r re-s en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

12