## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1558 , 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C HRISTO PH ER H OL CO MB , e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No s. 3: 10 -cr-30 05 8-RM-BGC et al

. —Richar d M il ls, Ju dge .

D EC I DE D A UGUST 24, 2011

Befo re E A S TERB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P OSNER, F LA UM, K ANN E , R O V N ER, W OO D , W I L L I A MS, S YKES, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . A m em bero fthi s co urt called fo r a vo te on the questi o n whe th erthe se f o ura ppea l s sh o ul d b e he ard en b an c on the co urt’ s o w n i ni ti ati ve. A m aj or i ty ofthe acti ve j udg es di d no t vo te i n f av o ro frehea r i nge n b an c, a nd the pr oposa lther ef or e f ai l s. Peti ti ons f orr ehear i ng o r re h ea r i n g e n ba n c w ill no t b e a c c ep te d ; th is d ec isio n is th e cou rt’s final j ud gm en t. T hree m em bers o f t h e cou rt have w ri tte n opi ni ons expla i ni ng the i r vot es.2 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e, w i th w h o m F LA UM, K ANN E , S YKES, and T INDER, C ircu it Judges , j o i n. The se f o ur appeal s were fi l ed by the U n ite d S tat es w i th the S ol i ci tor Ge ne r a l ’ s a utho r i z a t i o n. Ei g htda y s a ft e rthe Uni ted S ta te s pr ev ai l ed, the pr o se cut o rfi l ed a do cument sty l ed “N oti ce o fChanged Posi ti on” announci ng tha t th e Att o r ne y Ge ne r aldi sa g r ee s wi ththi s co ur t ( an d ap p ar entl y with the So l i ci torGenera lto o)
. The “Noti ce o fCha ng ed Po si ti o n” do es no t as kus t o do a ny th i ng i n part i cular , b u t s om e m em ber s o fthe cour t be l i eve that w e s h ou ld gra n t re h ea rin g e n ba n c an d ov er ru le U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 63 5 F
. 3d 33 6 ( 7th Ci r . 20 11 ) , whi ch l ed o ur p an el to d ecid e thes e four ap p eals i n th e pros ecu tor’s f avo r. Iam co ntent to l eave Fish eru nd i s t urb e d. The A tto rneyGenera l ’ s “ M em or andu m f oral lFe deral Pro secuto rs ”, d at ed J uly15 , 20 11, di re cts U ni ted S tat es A tto rney s t o ar gue that the Fa ir Se n tencing Act of20 10, P u b . L . 11 1

- 22 0, 12 4 S ta t. 23 72 (20 10 ), ap p lies to all cri m i nalp ro secuti ons i n w hi ch se ntence w as i m posed on o r afterA ugust 3 , 20 10, t h e d ay the Pr esi dent si gned the b i l l

. The M em orandum al so dir ects U ni ted S tat es A tto rney s t o ar gue that the 20 10 A ct does n ot a p plyto case s in w hi ch sentence w as pronounced o n A ugust 2 , 2010 , o r ear l i er, ev en iftheywere pend i ng i n the dist ri ct cour t o r appeal o n A ugust 3. In other w or ds, the A tto rney G en er al h as co n c lu d ed th at th e 2 0 1 0 A c t is p ar tia lly re tr oac ti ve. A s faras Iam aware, the Suprem e Cour t has neve r h eld an y c h an ge in a cr im in al p en al t y to be p ar tia lly re tr oac ti ve. The choi c e alw ays has been bi nary : r etr oac -N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 3 ti ve orpro specti ve. A nd wh at m ake s a pp l i cati on “ re tr oactiv e” i s a change i n the l ega lco nsequences ofact i vi ty th at p re d at es th e n ew l a w ’s e n ac tm en t. Se e g en er ally Landgraf v. U SI Fi lm Produ cts , 51 1 U.S
. 24 4 ( 1994 ) , wh i ch di s c us s e s wha t i t mea ns f o r a pp l i c a t i o n o f a ne w sta tute t o b e ret r o a c t i v e , a nd the t wo e xc e pt i o ns t o the p r e s umpti o n a g ains t r et r o acti vi ty : ne w pro ce dur alr ul es a nd new j uri sdic ti onalr equi re m ents. The 20 10 A ct doe s no t affe c t jud icia l p ro c ed u re ; i t c h a n ge s t h e p en alt y for cr im ina lc o nduc t. And i t do es no t affec t j ur i sdi ct i o n. The com m on l aw di stin gu ished i ncre ase s in cr i m i nal pu ni shm ents fro m r educti ons orr epeal s. A n y l aw that rep ea le d a crim inal statu te or redu ced the d efend an t’s pu n i s h me n twa s fu l l y r e t r o a c t i v e , wh i l e i n l i g h to ft he Consti tutio n ’ s Ex PostFa cto Cl ause a l aw cr eat i ng a c rim e o r in c re as in g c ri m i n a l p u n ish m en t c ou ld ap p ly o nl y t o c o nduc t th ato ccu rred a fte rthe l aw c ha ng ed. But i n 187 1 Congr ess enact ed the Gen er al Sav i ng S tatute, now co difi ed as 1 U.S
. C. §109 , wh i ch m ake s a l lchange s pros pecti ve unle ss the ne w st atute pro vi des o ther w i se. Wa rden v. M a rrero , 4 1 7U. S
. 6 5 3 , 6 5 9

– 6 1 ( 1 9 74 ) , di s c us ses thi s hi sto ry . S ecti on 1 09 provi des: The re pea lo fany sta tute shal lnothave the effect to re l eas e o r exti ngui sh any penal ty, f or fei ture , o r l i ab i l i tyi nc ur r ed unders uchs ta tu te , unl es s th e r epe al i ngActs ha l lso ex pr es sly pr o vi de, a nd su chs ta tu te s ha l lb e t re at ed as s ti l lr emai ni ng i n f or ce forthe p u rp ose o fsust ai ni ng anypro per acti on o r pros ecutio n f orthe enf or cem ent o f such penal ty, f or fei ture , o r l i abi l i ty.4 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

U n i te d S tat es v. G on calves , 64 2 F .3d 2 4 5 (1s t C ir . 20 1 1 ); U n i te d ^ S ta te s v . A c o

ff , 6 3 4 F .3d 20 0 (2d C ir . 20 1 1 ); U n i te d S tat es v. R eevey, 6 3 1 F .3d 11 0 (3d C ir . 20 1 0 ); U n i te d S tat es v. R hod es , 2011 U.S
. A p p . L EX IS 10238 ( 4 th Ci r . May 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( on e o fa tl e a s tfi ve o p in io n s in th a t c ir cu it, a ll n o n - p r e c e d en tia l); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Doggi ns , 63 3 F .3d 37 9 (5t h C ir . 20 1 1 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Carr a di ne, 6 2 1 F .3d 5 7 5 (6 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ); U n i te d S tat es v. B rew er, 624 F. 3d 9 0 0 (8 th C ir . 20 1 0 ); U n i te d S tat es v. B apti st, 2 0 1 1 U .S. A p p . L EX IS 1 1 0 5 6 ( 9 t h C ir . Jun e 2 , 20 1 1 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . L ew is , 625 F. 3d 1224 ( 10th Cir

. 2010 ); U n i te d S tat es v. G om es , 621 F. 3d 1343 (11th C ir. 20 10 ). T he D .C. C ircu it ha s y et to ad d ress this sub ject. Defe nd ants ar gued that §109 i s i rr el evant to the 2010 A ct, because i t r educes r atherthan “r epeal s” the pe n altie s f orcr ack cocai ne. They a l so conte nd ed that a cr i m i nal d oes not “incu r” a pu nish m en t un tilsent en ced

. Ev ery ci r cui t ha s co nc l ude d, to th e co nt r ary, th at a l aw r edu cing cr i m i na lpuni sh m en t i s a re pea lo fthe o l d s ta tu te a nd th e en ac tmento fa ne w on e f o rthe p urpos e o f§ 10 9, a nd th a ta p u n i s h me n ti s i n c u r r e d w h e n th e c r i me i s c o mm itt ed

. M a rrero supp or ts both of these concl usi ons. O u r p re c ed en t is U nite d States v. B el l , 624 F. 3d 803, 81 4–15 ( 7th Cir
. 2010 ) , w hi ch hol ds that §109 m ake s th e 2 010 A c t pr ospect i ve, bec ause i t l acks an e xpress decl ar ati on of re tr oac ti vi ty. A f oo tnot e co l l ects o therci rcui ts’ equi val ent deci si ons. ^ B el l and the othe r ci rcui ts rej ecte d argum ents f orr etr oactivity m ad e by d efend an ts w hos e a p p eals w ere p en d i ng o n A ugust 3 , 20 10. That’ s why cour ts could dec i de th e que st i o n s o qui ck l y . A se co nd wav e o fde fen dants , those se ntenced o n orafterA ugust 3 , 20 10, as ked f o rpartial re tr o ac ti vi ty
. Ourc i r cui t was the fi r stt o c o n-N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 5 si dertha t po ss ibi l i ty
. The pa ne li n Fish err ej ec te d the ar gum en t th atthe da te o fs en te nc i ngmatt er s. I fthe 20 10 Acti s r etroac ti ve , the n i t appl i es t o a l lpe ndi ng case s no m att er how f ar they have got i n th e jud ici al sys tem ; i fi t i s no t r etr oac ti ve, then i t a pp l i es o n ly to cr i m es c o m m i tt ed o n o ra fte rAugus t 3, 2 01 0. N o th i ng depe nds o n the s en te nc i ngda te , which refl ec ts ho w l o ng i t t oo k t o catch a cr i m i nal, an d the s tat e o fthe dist ri ct j ud ge’ s ca l endar, r atherthan prin ci ple s o fdeter re nce ordeser t. Se cti on 1 09 say s that the f or m erl aw “s hal lbe tr ea te d a s st i l lr emainingi n fo r ce ” f o rpr e- amendment c on d u c t. If th e o ld law is “t re at ed as s t ill rem ain in g in for c e” , th e n ew law ca n ’t b e a p p lied to p er so n s n ew ly sente nced f orpre - am endm ent c ri m es; §1 09 f or ecl ose s parti alr etr oac ti vi ty. U ni t e d St at e s v. D o ug l as , 644 F.3d 39 (1st C ir. 2011), re ached a contr ar y c oncl usi on, apparent l y unaware that i t was c re at i ng a confl i ct with Fish er, wh i ch had been iss u ed 20 d ay s e ar lier. D ougl as h eld th at th e n e w m in im um and m axi m um se ntence s ta ke effect f ordefen d an ts se n te n c ed on an d a f te r N ov em b er 1, 20 10 . (I ’ll com e back to the sou rce of that d ate.) U ni t e d S tat e s v. Rojas , 201 1 U .S . A p p . L EXIS13677( 11th Cir. J uly 6, 2011 ), the n mi s r ead D ougl as as hol ding that the ne w r ule s take effe c t with sent enci ng o n and afterA ugust 3 , 20 10, and app l i ed that tr an sit i on date

. ( Roj as w as sente nced on A ugus t 3 an d woul d no t ha ve be en el i g ibl e f or a l ower s entence under D ougl as .) O n Ju ly 7ou r p an el in Ho l c o mb r em anded f our case s w i th i nstr ucti ons to ap p ly Bell a nd Fish er . A nd o n J uly15 the A tto rney Gen er ali ss ue d hi s m em orandum a g r ee i ngwi th Rojas
. That l ed to the U ni ted S tat es A tto rney ’ s “ N oti ce o f6 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 Ch anged Pos i ti on” i n the four appeal s thi s ci rcui t had dec id ed o n J uly7. Then U ni t e d S t at e s v. D ixon , 2011 U
. S. A p p . L EXIS16 374 (3d Cir

. A ug. 9, 20 11) , f ol l owed Roj as w i thout expla i ni ng wh y i t cho se A ugust 3 r atherthan N ove m ber1 as the t ra nsi ti on date

. M ostr ecent l y, U ni ted Sta tes v. Sid ney, 201 1 U .S. A p p . L EXIS16421 ( 8th Cir. Aug. 1 0, 2 011), ag r ee d wi th Fish erand concl ud ed that §109 does notper m i t par ti alr etr oac ti vi ty. W h en th e E x ec u tiv e B r a n c h co n fes se s e rro r, th is c irc u it g i ve s r es pec tfulc o ns i der at i o n t o the r ationa l e f o rthe new posi ti on. A r ecentexam ple i s U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 598 F. 3d 411 ( 7th Ci r. 201 0) ( en banc) , wh i ch ov er rul ed seve ra lo fthe cir c u i t’ s deci si ons afterthe So l i ci tor Gen er al fi l ed a br i ef ca r eful l y ex pl aini ng where the ci r cui t ha d g o ne wron g. Tha t ex pl an at i o n c ar r i ed th e day; C o rnerwas unanim ous. U nfo rtunatel y, the A tto rney General’ s “ M em or andu m f oral lFe deralPro secuto rs ” lac ks th e s or t o f an al y s i s t h at w as so h elp fu l inC o rner . The M em or andu m does n ot disc uss § 109 orthe l anguage o fthe 2 01 0 Act. I t d oes no t ex pl ain why par t i al r etr oacti vi ty i s a pp ro pr iate

— or w h y t h e t ra n sit ion sh ou ld d e p e n d o n th e d a t e o fs e n t e n c i n gr a th e rth a n s o me oth er even t, s ucha s a g ui l typl ea o ra ppea l

. The A tto rney General does quote fro m the capti on of S. 178 9, w hich de scribes th e prop osal as “A bil l to restore fai rness to Feder alcr i m i n al s entencing”, but thi s l anguage pr ec ede s th e en ac tingc l au se and i s no t par t o fthe Uni te d S ta tes C od e. I t al so i s unhe l pfuli n e va l ua ting a pr o po sa lf o rr et r o ac ti ve a ppl i ca ti o n. E very l aw l o wer i ng se nt en ce s ex pr es se s a l eg i sl at i ve c o nc l us i o n tha t se ntence s had be en exce ssi ve. The co m m on la w r esponded by applying penal ty re du cti ons re tr oac ti vel y. Bu t § 109N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 7 provi des o ther w i se. The o bserva tio n that Congre ss, th e Pr es i den t, a nd many fede r alj udg es thi nkthe f or m err ule s e xcessi ve ly seve re does notdi stingui sh the 2 010 A ct from a n y otherl aw r educing sente nces and does no t j usti fy di sr ega rdi ng the anti

- re troacti vi ty nor m cr eat ed by §109
. D ougl as a sk ed what rea so n the r e co ul d b e to c o nt i nue i m po sings en te nc es tha t th e 20 10 Actc o ndem ns a s ex cess ive. T he sam e qu estion could be asked abou t every othe r l aw thatr ed uces c ri m i nalse ntences
. The answer m us t be tha t §1 09 i ts el fs uppl i es the r ea so n. I t te l l s us th ats ta tu to r y l en i en ce do es no t r edu ce th e puni sh m en t f oract s co m ple ted be f or e the new l aw to ok effect. Perhaps the c om m on law r efl ects gr eat erwisdom than d o e s § 1 0 9 , b u tC o n g r e s s h a s d i s p l a c e d th e c o mmo n l a w. A l though § 109 say s tha t on l y a n “expre ss” pro vi si on ina lat er st at u te ca n su p p or t re tr oa c tiv it y , C on gr es s is enti tl ed t o c ha ng e tha t r ul e j us t a s i t i s e nt i t l e d t o change th e p unis hm ent fordi str ibuti ng cr ack coca i ne. The l egi sl atur e o f18 71 c an ’ t t i e the hands ofthe l egi sl atu re s i tting i n 201 0. Thi s m ay be why the Court sugge st ed inM a rrero thata “f air im pli cati on” i n a ne w l aw co uld all ow ret ro acti ve appli cati on. 41 7 U.S
. at65 9 n .10 . A n ea rlier d ec is ion, G reat N o rthern R y. v. U nited Sta tes , 20 8 U.S
. 45 2, 46 5 ( 1908 ) , sa i d that w hen a new l aw “ by ne ce ss ary i m pl i ca ti o n” a ppl i es t o pr e- en ac tment cri m es, the cour ts m ust fol l ow the newer l aw r ather than § 1 0 9
. A ne c e s s a r y ( o r f a i r ) i mpl i c a t i o n f a l l s s ho r to f an expre ss provi si on but coul d sh ow that Congr ess has am ended §109 to that extent. St i l l, unle ss superse ded , §1 098 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 is a s au th o r i ta ti ve a s o th err ul es f o und in the Di ct ionary A ct, 1 U
. S. C. §§ 1–8, and i n 1 8 U
. S. C. §§ 5–27
. Defi ni ti ons, pr es um pti o ns , and pr es et s ar e es se nt i alt o unde r st an di ng legal tex ts. T he y are sub j ect to r e v ision, but a court sh ou ld n otligh tly infe r th at C on gr es s h as to s s e d o u t a ll the fra m ew or k l aw s that f aci l i tat e int er preta ti on

— an d th us f acili tate l e g islation too, by giving the l egislature a for m ula ryto use. S ee, e. g. , R o w la nd v. C alif ornia M en’s Colon y , 5 0 6 U. S
. 1 9 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o l d i n gth a tth e c o n t e xt cl au se i n the Di ct i o na r y Acta l l o ws de par tu r e fr o m the presum p tive defi ni ti ons onl y i fther e i s no o ther p lausible l ingu isti c u nd erstan d ing of th e new statu te). Se e a l so Kentu cky Asso cia tio n of Heal th P la ns, Inc
. v. M i l l er, 53 8 U. S
. 3 29 ( 20 03 ) ( en f o r cingthe r ule in the M cCa r r an Fer g us o n Acttha t o nl y fede r all aws e xpr es sly a ppl y i ng to insu ran ce su p ersed e state regu latory sche m es). N ei t h e r th e A tt or n ey G en er al n or an y m em b er of th is cour t be l i eve s that the 2010 A ct i s ful l y r etr oac ti ve. To s ay that the 2 010 A ct i s no t fu lly re tr oac ti ve i s t o saythat C on gr es s d id no ts u p e r s e d e § 1 0 9 , e x p r e s s l y o rb y i mpli cati on. S ecti on 1 09 forecl ose s par ti alr etr oac ti vi ty by p r ov id in g t h at th e fo rm er law “s h all b e t re at ed as st ill re m ain in g i n f or ce” f orpre - am endm ent c onduct. I f§1 09 has no t be en super seded, w h at is the j usti fi cati on f or parti al re tr oac ti vi ty? The A tto rney General, l i ke the first, thi rd, and el eve nth ci rcui ts, i s s i l ent o n that subj ect. So m e o fm y c ol l eagues be l i eve th at support f orpart i al re tr oac ti vi ty can be f ound in §8 of the 2010 A c t, w hi ch provi des:N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 9 T h e U n ite d Sta te s Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion sh all

— ( 1) pro m ulg ate the gui del i nes, pol i cy sta tem en ts , or am en d m en ts p ro vid ed for in th i s Act as s o o n a s pr ac ti cab l e, a nd in a ny eve nt notl ate r than 90 da ys afterthe date ofenact m ent o fthi s Act, i n acco rdance w i th the pro cedure setf or th i n sec ti on 21( a) o fthe Sentenci ng Act of19 87 ( 28 U
. S. C. 994 note) , as tho ugh the author i ty unde rtha t Act ha d no t ex pi r ed; a nd ( 2) pursuant to the e m er gencyauthority provi ded under par agr aph ( 1) , m ak e such conf or m i ng a m endm ents to the F edera l sente nci ng guideline s a s the Com m i ssi on deter m i nes ne cess ar y t o achi ev e co nsi ste nc y w ith o th erg ui del i ne pr o vi si o ns a n d a p p l i c ab l e l a w. A r equi re m ent fora change i n Gu i del i nes withi n 90 days of th e ne w l aw’ s en ac tmentdo es no t i m pl y a ny th i ng about m i ni m um and m axi m um se ntences o n A ugust 3 , 2010
. The new Gu i del i nes cam e i nto effect on N ove m ber1, 2010
. Thi s i s the so urce ofthe date thatD ougl as chos e. T he fi r stc i r cui t th o ug hti t woul d b e i nc o ng r uo us i fthe n ew G u id elin es , bu t n otth e n ew m in im u m an d m ax im u m sentences , appli ed to defendants se ntenced o n o ra fte rNov embe r1 , 2 01 0. Thi s do es no t su ppo r t th e A tt or n ey G en er a l ’ s v i ew th at A u gu st 3 m ar ks th e t ra n sitio n . Pu tt in g t h e s ta tu to ry ch an ge s in to effe c t w h ile the Com m issi on was st i l ldel iber ating would be j ust a s i ncongr uous as putti ng the Guidel i nes b ut notth e new10 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

m i ni m um a nd maxi m um pe na lt i es i nt o e ffec t. Ye t no ne ofm y c ol l eagues co ncl ud es that the rule s chang e for s e n t e n c e s o n No v e mb e r1 , 2 0 1 0 , o rf o rth a tma t t e rN o v e mber1, 20 11

— w hen t h e 2010 Guidel i nes wil lbe gi ven re tr oac tive effect. S ee Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on Rel eas e ofJ uly 1 , 20 11, m aking Am endm ent 750, wh i ch i m ple

m ented the 20 10 A ct, r etroa cti ve as ofN ove m ber1, 20 11. ( The Com m issi on’ s a uthor i ty to apply new Guidel i nes to cl ose d c ase s com es fro m 18 U
. S. C. §358 2( c) ( 2). Se e D illo n v . U nited Sta tes , 130 S. C t. 26 83 (20 10 ).) A read er m igh t b e incli ne d to ask w hy the 20 10 A ct’s c h an ge s t o m in im u m an d m ax im u m se n te n c es sh ou ld not tak e e ffect on N ove m ber1, 201 0, the s am e date as the r evi sed Guidel i nes

— f or r evi sed Guidel i nes a pp l y t o ne w sent en ces ev en i f th e con d uc t took place years ea rlier . See 18 U .S.C . §35 53 (a)( 4)(A )(ii); U ni t ed State s v. D em a ree, 4 5 9 F
. 3 d 7 9 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e r e i s n o i n co nsi ste ncy how eve r, because the Gu i del i nes and th e 2 010 A ct a re doi ng di ffer ent thi ngs. The st atute thatpro vi des p en alties for cocaine and cocaine base, 21 U

. S. C
. §841(b), set s m i ni m um and m axi m um pu ni shm ents; th e G uidel i nes then i nfluence wh er e withi n tha t range the j ud ge im p oses sen ten ce. Th e 2010 A ct am e n d e d §841(b). J ud ges ar e fre e t o disa gr ee w ith the Com m i ssi on, se e U ni t e d St at e s v. B o o k er, 543 U .S. 22 0 (2 00 5); Kim b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S
. 85 ( 2007 ) , but they are not fre e t o disa gr ee w i th Congre ss. Thu s w e have tw o ret ro acti vi ty dat es . One i s when th e n ew mi ni m um a nd maxi m um penal ti es tak e e ffect; the othe r i s w hen the re vi sed Guidel i ne s t a k e e ffe c t
. T he Co mm i s s i o n ha s , a nd h a s u s e d, sta tutory a uthor i ty to apply the l ower Guidel i nes e venN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 11 to cl ose d cases st ar ti ng N ove m ber1, 20 11. The Com m i ssi o n l ac k s an y e qui va l en t au th o r i tyt o make di ffer en t st at u to ry m in im u m an d m ax im u m se n te n c e s ap p lica b le to case s in w hi ch the cri m i nalcond uct pre dated A ugust 3 , 2010
. The se f o ura ppea l s ar e ab o utthe r et r o ac ti vi tyo fthe ch an g es t o the s ta tu to r y m inimum a nd maxi m um s en te n c es , no t a b ou t t h e a m en d ed G u id elin es . A n d th is is w hy §8 of the 2010 A ct does not affect these ap p eals

. C h an ge s t o th e G u id elin es h av e n ot h in g t o d o w ith m in imu m a n d ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e s . T h a t wa s s e t t l ed i n Ne al v. U nited Sta tes , 516 U
. S. 284 (1996), w h ic h th e C ou rt r e a ffi r med i n Kim b r ough a nd D eP ierre v. U nited Sta tes , 13 1 S . C t. 22 25 (2 01 1). W h en t h e C om m iss ion d ra m at ica lly l owered the Gu i del i ne r anges f orL SD, defendants ar gu ed that i t would be pre poste ro us to applythe new Guidelines ( whi chdo no t co untthe wei g hto fthe carrier m ed ium ) w hile l eavin g un ch an ged the st a t ut ory m i ni m um , whi ch C ha p m a n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 0 U.S
. 45 3 ( 1991 ) , hol ds does count the car ri er ’ s wei ght. Ne al h e l d, ho wev er, tha t th e statut e an d the Gui del i ne a r e unc o nnecte d and that a rgum ents about i ncongr uity do not j u st ify m od ifyin g t h e s ta tu to ry m in im u m an d m ax im um se ntences
. The ra ti o i n the G uidel i nes has notbee n 100 : 1 s i nce 20 07. That ye ar, the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on d ro pp ed m ost coca i ne-base sentences by tw o l eve l s. See A m endm ent 7 06, effecti ve N ove m ber1, 20 07 ( and m ade r etr oac ti ve by Am en dm en t 71 3 as o fM ar ch3 , 2 00 8)
. T he resul t o fthe 2007change was a r ati o th at , d epending on quanti ty,12 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

cou ld be as low as 25:1 oras high a s 8 0 :1 . F o r m an y offe n d e r s th e fu r th e rc h a n g e i n 2 0 1 0 d o e s n o tma tt er . No o ne who di st r ibut es 8. 4 ki l o g r ams o rmor e o fc o ca i ne base r ecei ved a low erGuidel i ne r ange. M any c om m on qua nt i ti es ha ve the s ame b as e o ffen se l ev elb efo r e an d afterthe 2010 change t o U
. S. S. G. §2D1. 1. Fo r exam ple , the l eve lf ordi str ibuti ng 1 ki l o d ro pp ed fro m 36 to 34 i n 200 7 b u t stayed at34 i n 201 0. S om e defendants re c ei ve a be nefi t fro m bo th r evi si ons: the l eve lf or10 0 gr am s of cra ck fel l fro m 30 to 28 i n 2007 and t o 26 in 20 10
. M y po i nti s no t th atthe 2 01 0 ch an g es a r e sl i g ht f o re ve r y o ne

— th e be ne fi t ca n b e la r g e f o rpe r so ns wh o d i s t r i b ut e s ma l lqu a n t i t i e s ( th e l e v e lf o r5 g r a ms drops fro m 24 to 16 )

—but that t h e G uidel i nes abandoned th e 1 00 :1 ra tio in 2 00 7, n o t 2 0 10 . N eit h er in 2 00 7 n or in 2010 di d C ongr ess l i nk the ti m e o fchang e in t he Guidel i ne s’ r ati o t o the tim e o f ch an g e i n the min i m um a nd m axi m um penal ti es. Se c tio n 8, wh i ch te l l s the Com m i ssi on t o geta m ove o n in r ev i singi ts Gui del i ne s, do es no t i m p l y a ny th i ng about w hen the new m i ni m um and m axi m um se ntences go i nto for c e. Because forso m e quanti ti es the di ffer ence b et w ee n th e 2 00 7 a n d 20 10 qu an tit y t ab les is sm all o r no ne xi st en t, o ne effec t o f th e r api d r ev i si o n i s to in

creas e pe na lti es sw iftly for the m ost se rious offen d ers ( and to i ncre as e the di ffer ence between the penal ti es f orthe w or st offenders and t h e le astse ri ous o nes)

— as sect i ons 5 a nd 6 ofthe 2010 A ct c al lf orh i gherGuidelin es w h en ce rt ain ag gr av at in g fa c to rs are p re se n t, w h ile §7di r ec ts the S en tencing Comm i ss i o n t o r edu ce the pu ni s hme ntf o ro ffe nd e r s wi th mi ni malr o l e s . T ho se changes ar e unre l ate d to the c ra ck/pow der r ati o.N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 13

The 100-t o- 1 rat io was cr eate d b y legisla tio n in 1986. In 1990 ‡ Congr es s d ir ec t ed the Se nt en c i ng Co m m i s s i on t o s t udy the (c on tin u ed

... ) S e c t i o n 1 0 o fth e 2 0 1 0 A c tte l l s th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mm i ss i o n to study th e effec ts o f th e ne w l eg i sl ati on and re p or t w ith in five y e a r s. D ixon o bs er ve d tha t, unl es s th e new l egi sl ati on a pp l i es re tr oac tive l y, the study wil lbe l i m i ted to t h e l aw ’ s e ffect on per sons w ho di str ibute coca i ne bas e a fterA ugust 2 , 20 10. S o? There w i l lbe p l e n t y o f p e o p l e i n th a t c a t e g o r y . T h e p o i n to fs uch a study i s to as ce r ta i n ho w l o wer pen al ti es af fect the volum e of crim e. Pe op le w ho d istribu ted cocaine before the 2 010 A ct e xpected to be subj ect to the o l d penalty str ucture; thei r behav ior ca nnot be change d by a l ate r d ro p in s en te n c es . A st u d y of t h e 2 01 0 A c t ’ s e ffec ts w ill pr o duce mean i ng fulr es ul ts o nl y i fl i m i te d t o pe r so ns w h os e c rim in al c on d u c t o c c u rs w h i le th e 2 01 0 A c t is in f or c e . I do no t think tha t § 1 0 s up pl i e s muc h f o o t i ng f or a n i nfe r e nc e o ne wa y o rthe o the r, b ut, i f§ 1 0 i s r e l e vant, D ixon g o tthing s b a c k wa r d. Thoughtful peopl e m i ght wo n der what se nse i t m ake s for C on gr es s, h a v in g d ec id ed th at a 10 0-t o-1 rat io is ex cess i ve , t o l ea ve the min i m um a nd maxi m um s en tence s a l one f orper sons w h ose cr i m es predate A ugust 3 , 2010
. Iti s a g o o d que s t i o n, t o wh i c h the r e i s n o s a t i sf acto ry a nsw ero therthan the obser vati on that l egi sl at i o n i s a n e xe r c i s e i n c o mpr o mi se. S o me l e g i s l a t o r s s up port ed the exi sting 10 0- to- 1 r ati o between co cai ne bas e a n d p o wd e rc o c a i ne , wh i l e o th e r s th o u g h tth a tth e t wo v e r s i o ns o fthi s drugs ho ul d b e t r e a t e d the s a me, as th e S e n t e n c i n g C o mmi s s i o n o n c e r e c o mme n d e d

. S o me ‡14 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) s ubj ec t
. The Com m i s s i on has i s s ued four r epo rts , e ac h m aki ng a differentprop osal

. See C oca i ne and Fede ra l Sent enci ng P ol i cy (F eb . 1 9 9 5 ) (p ro p o sin g 1:1 ); C oca i ne and Fede ra l Sent enci ng P ol i cy ( A p r. 1 9 9 7 ) (re co m m en d in g 5:1 ); Co c a i n e a n d F e d e r a l S e n t e n c i ng Pol i cy (M a y 20 0 2 ) (re co m m en d in g ra tio o f“ a t le a st” 20 :1); C oca i ne a nd Fede ra l Sent enci ng P ol i cy ( M ay 20 07 ) ( re c om m en di ng 20 :1 or less). U ntil 20 10 C on g ress d id no thin g in resp on se to thes e re ports, ex cept that i n 1995 i t b lo ck ed p roposed changes t hatw oul d h a v e ma de th e Gu i de l i n e s ’ r a t i o 1 : 1
. I n 2 0 0 7, h o wev er, Co ng ress allow ed the C om m i ss i o n t o ch an g e the ratio in th e Gu i de l i n e s b y r e du c i n g mo s tc o c a i n e -b a s e r a n g e s by t wo offen s e l eve l s , whi l e the s t atut or y m i ni m um an d m ax i m um se n te n ce s co n tin u ed to re fle ct a 1 0 0 :1 r a tio
. K i m bro ugh s um m ari ze s thi s hi s t or y. 55 2 U. S. at 94 –1 00
. That i t t ook 24 y ear s to c ha ng e the m uc h- c r i t i c i z e d 1 0 0 : 1 r a t i o i n § 8 4 1 (b)

— and thatthr ee s ec t i ons ofthe 20 10 Actc al l f or hi ghe r pen al t i es f or s om e drug dist ribu tors

— dem ons t ra t es the di ffi c ul t y ofc re at i ng a pac kage tha t can attra ct m ajor ity su p p or t. m em ber s o fCongr ess wan ted to r educe the dispar i ty by ra i si ng the penal ti es f or pow der coca i ne; othe rs w anted to add re ss i t byr educing the penal ti es f orcr ack. M em ber s o f Congre ss com prom i sed ata ra ti o of18 to 1, with m ost ch an g e co m i ngthr o ug h r edu ct i o ns i n mi ni m um a nd m axi m um te rm s o fi m pri sonm ent. There’ s no sc ientifi c ba si s forthe 18- to- 1 r ati o, o r f or get ti ng the re byr educ in g c ra ck sente nces ra therthan i nc r ea singpo wders en te nc es , b uti t was the b est tha t th e adv o ca te s o fpa r i tyc o ul d a ch i ev e ( o r, e qui va l en tly, the m ostthato therl egi sl ato rs would conce de). Idon’ t m ean b y t h is th at t h e 1 8:1 rat io is irra tio n al, on ly th at it isN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 15

arbi t r a r y, i n th e s a me s e n s e th a ta s t a t u t e o fl i mi t at i o ns i s a rb i t r a r y . ( Wh y 9 0 o r2 7 0 d a y s f o re mp l o y me n t
- d i s c r i mi nati on s uit s, 2 yea rs f orcla im s und erthe Feder al TortCl ai m s Act, 4 yea rs forthe resi du alst atute i n 28 U
. S. C. §16 58 , and 5 y ear s form ostfedera lfel oni es?) M any M em ber s o fCongr ess wh o w anted pari ty al so f a vor ed r e t r o a c t i v i t y, a nd Memb e r s wh o s up po r t e d a hi gherr ati o al so f avo re d no r etr oac ti vi ty. One w ay proponents o fthi s l aw co uld a chi eve a l ower r ati o w as to gi ve up o n re tr oac ti vi ty. The r ati o, and re tr oac ti vi ty, ar e a m ong the s eve ra ldi m ensi ons ofthi s co m prom i se. M ostl egi sl ati ve deal s a re st ru c k off the fl oo r. Ido not claim i ns id e know ledge abou t this one

. Perh ap s Ierr ingu es sin g a b ou t h o w t h i s law ca m e t o h av e a n 18 :1 ra ti o and to al l ow the S entencing Com m i ssi on t o i m ple

m en t re tr oa c tiv e G u id elin es . Ibr oa c h th is s u bj ec t o n ly to s aywhy Ido not fi nd pe r su as i ve a n a r g um en t al o ng th e lines of : “The r evi sed Guidel i nes were i n pla ce b y N o ve m be r1 , 2 010, so the ne w m i ni m um a nd maxi m um pe na l t i e s mus ta pp l y t o a tl eas ts o meper sons w hose c r i me s o c c ur r e d b e f o r e A u g u s t3 , 2 0 1 0
. ” T h a tth e me di sr eg ar ds th e co m pr o m i se na tu r e o fl eg i sl at i o n. W he n Co ng r e s s e na c t s a b i l l, a maj o r i t y a g r e e s on i ts text, noto n gr an d pri nci ple s. N ei thersi de go t e ver yth i ngi t want ed i n thi s st atut e, a nd j udg es di ss er ve the leg isla tiv e p ro c es s b y g ivin g on e s id e m or e t h an it secur ed at the b ar gaini ng tabl e. Ind eed, the tendency t o pr o vi de o ne si de wi th “j us t a l i tt l e m o r e i n th e r i g ht dir ecti on” can m ake l egi sl ati on har der t o acco m pli sh byr equi r ing Con g r es s to t ak e up, a nd r es o l ve , a l lo fthe16 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 way s i n whi chthe j udi ciary m i g htb e te m pte d t o t i nker

. “[ N ] o l egi sl ati on pursues i ts pu rpos es at al lco sts
. Deci ding w hat co m peti ng va l ues wil lor w i l lnotbe sa c rific ed to th e a c h iev em en t o f a p a r t icu lar ob j ec tiv e is the v er y e sse nce o fl egi sl ati ve choi ce

— and i t frust ra tes ra th e r th an effe c tu at es legis lat ive int en t s im p list ica lly to ass um e that w ha tever furth ers th e statu te’ s p rim ary ob j ecti ve m ust be the l aw . ” R o drig uez v. U nited Sta tes , 480 U
. S. 52 2, 52 5–26 (1987) ( em phasi s in or i gi nal )
. Fo r allw e can know , a beli e f in C o n gress th at th e j ud ici ary w oul d m ake the l aw parti al l y re tr oac ti ve w ou ld have st iffen ed th e o p p os itio n to th e b ill, an d t h e 1 0 0:1 rat io w oul d sti l lbe i n f or ce t oday. Ch oo sin g a n effecti ve date fornew le gi sl ati on ca n be as a rbi tr ary a s dec i di ngho w m an y g r ams ofc o ca i ne hydrochl or i de re cei ve the s am e t re atm en t as o ne gr am of c oc ai ne bas e. The A tto rneyGenera lr el i es heavi l y o n the word “f ai r” i n the ti tl e o fthe Fai r Se n te n ci ng Act, but w h at ’s f ai r about condem ni ng so m eone se ntenced o n Aug us t 2 to mor e ti m e i n pr i so n tha n a per so n s en tence d t h e next day, ev en tho ugh theyco m m i tte d thei r cri m es on the sa m e date (a nd m ay have been coconspi ra tors )? S up pose com ra des i n cr i m e di str ibute co ca i ne i n mi d- 20 09 a nd ar e ca ug htpr o m ptly . One c o nfes se s, pl ea ds g ui l ty, an d te st i fi es at th e tr i al of th e o the r, wh o fi g ht s t o o th a nd n a i la nd f a l s e l y de ni e s c ul pab i l i ty
. The fi r sti s se nt en ce d on A ugus t 1, 2 01 0, the seco nd o n S e pt e mbe r1
. Ho w wo ul d i tb e “ f a i r ” ( o re ven consci onabl e) to gi ve the l ower s entence to the perso n w ho r efused to acc ept r esponsibi l i ty f orhi s cr i m es,N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 17 j ust be cause by dragg i ng o ut the proce ss that perso n w as sente nced afterA ugust 2 ? It w ou ld be w eir d to co n c lu d e t h at, th e lon ge r it tak es to i ssue an i nd i ctm en t, o r the b ett erthe offender ate va di ngc aptur e, a nd he nc e th e l at erthe s en te nc i ng date, the l ower the sente nce. W hy shoul d th e c hanges i n the m i ni m um and m axi m um te rm s t ake effe ct before the ch an ges in the Gu idelines (N ovem ber 1, 2010 )? Rojas , D ixon , and the A ttorn ey G en eral do not even try t o e x p l a i n w h y the y ch o s e A u g u s t3 r a th e rth a n N o v e mber1 as the t ra nsi ti on date

. W hy change the rul es as of th e dat e o fs en te nc i ngr athe rtha n the da te o fa r r ai g nm ent, pl ea, o r tr i al, the date the appeali s deci ded , o r s o me o the re v e nt ? Anyo ftho s e t r a ns i t i o n dates w oul d produce i ncongr uit i es. Onlyfullr etr oac ti vi ty, o r no r etr oac ti vi ty, tr eat s e qual cri m i nalco nd uct e qually. I fth e P r e s i d e n twa n t s t o a p p l y th e l o we rmi ni m um a nd ma xi mum penal ti e s t o a l lc a s e s , p e nd i nga nd c l o s e d, he h as on ly to issue a gen eral com m ut ation. Th e pa rdon pow erper m i ts the Pr esi dent to achi eve r etr oac ti ve l e ni e nc e i fh e i s wi l l i ngt o p ay the p o l i t i c a lp r i c e . By contr ast, the j ud i ci ar y m ust i m ple m ent c om prom i ses f ai th ful l y, e ve n whe n mos t j udg es w ish th atthe p oli tical decision h ad been differen t. Ihav e the refore vot ed not to hearthes e a pp eal s e n banc.18 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, w i th w h o m P OSNER, R OV NER, W OO D , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges , j o i n, di ss en ting fro m the denia lo fr eheari ng en banc. The s entence s Con g r es s ha d o r i g i nall y mandat ed f o rc r ac kc o ca i ne o ffe n s e s p r e mi s e d o n d r u gqu a n t i t i e s th a twe r e o ne hu n d r e d t i me s l o we rth a n th o s e f o rp o wd e rc o c a i ne offenses ar e ind efensib le. T here i s no debate abo ut that

. Re co g ni zingthi s, Co ng r es s wi ped th em ou t inthe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act of20 10 to, i n i ts own words,

“ re st or e fa irn es s in Fe d er al c oc ain e s en te n c in g” by elim inati ng the 10 0: 1 m andator y m i ni m um s. The o nl y questi o n in thi s ca se , o dd a s i t m i g hts o und, is whethe rCo ng r es s want ed ev ery o ne se nt en ce d afte r th e F ai rSe ntencing A ct b ecam e l aw to r ecei ve a “ f ai r” se ntence, o r j ust s om e. Ou r ci rcui t s hou ld h ave hear d thi s ca se en banc. Three othe r ci rcui ts have rul ed that j ud ges no l onge r m ust i m po se u n f ai r sente nces afterthe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act. T h i s i s s u e a ffe c t s p e n d i n gc a s e s a n d ma ny ca s e s t o c o me i n l i g hto fthe fi ve- yea rs ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns o n dr ug pr o se cut i o ns . T he re wer e equa lv o te s to g r an t an d de ny re h ea rin g e n ba n c . So ou r c irc u it’ s l a w s ta n d s, an d it i s wrong.

I. Antho ny Cl ar dy w as se nt en ce d a fte rthe F ai rS en te nc i ngActb ec ame l aw. The quan ti tyo fc r ac kc o ca i ne in vo lve d w as to o s m all to trig ge r a m an d a t o r y m in im um unde rthe F ai rS en te nc i ngAct( “F S A”) , a nd the j ud ge i m posed a se n te nce o f33 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent.N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 19 The U ni ted S tat es gov er nm ent, exer ci si ng the d i scr eti on t o a pp e a ls e nt e nc e s tha ti th a s , a r g ue d t o u s tha tCl a r dy sh ou ld be sen ten ced to the h igher p re-FSA m an d atory m i ni m um b ec au se the dr ugde alha ppen ed be f o r e th e FS A ’ s passag e. ForCl ar dy, thatwould m ean a se ntence of 120 m onths i n pri son. That sente nce i s so l engthy, and i s s o out ofl i ne with w hat the exper i enced se nten c in g j ud ge th ou gh t th e p ro p er se n te n c e s h ou ld be , bec a u se it is prem i sed o n the 1 00 -to -1 cr ack to pow der r ati o that has been ackno w l edged to be base l ess . If th e F SA a p p l i es to h im , th en , A n th on y C lar d y w ill ser ve a 3 3- m on th sentence. I fi t doe s no t, hi s s entence wi l ls o a rt o 1 2 0 mo nths

. P e r ha ps thi s di ffe r e nc e s o un ds o ve r l y dr amat i c, o rl ea ds o ne t o thi nkthat the s en te nc i ng j ud g e mus th a v e i ni t i a l l y i mpo s e d a l i g hts e ntence. Tha t woul d b e wro ng . The Uni te d S ta te s S en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes a dvis ed a s entence o f30 to 37m onths’ i m pri so nm en t he r e. The j udg e se nt en ced Cl ar dy r i g hti n the m i dd l e.

II. W e con soli d ated the gove rnm en t’s app eal ofClard y’s se n t e n c e w ith its ap p ea ls in th re e o th er ca se s, all involving d efend an ts w ho com m itted crim es before th e FSA becam e law on A ug u s t 3, 2010 , bu t w ho w ere sente n c ed afterthatand und eri ts ter m s. Each had an a mo u n to fc r a c kc o c a i n e th a tt r i g g e r e d a mandator y m i ni m um under the o l d l aw that w as les s than anincr ea se d t r i g g er i nga m o untunde rthe F S A. In l i g ht ofo urr ul i ngi n U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 6 3 5 F
. 3 d 3 3 6 ( 7th20 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 C ir. 20 1 1 ), reh’g en ban c den ied, 2011 W L 20229 59 (7th C ir. M ay 25, 20 11) , a panel o fo ur co urt agr eed with the go ver nm ent, vac ated t h e s entence s i m posed by the di str i ct j u d g e , a n d s a i d th e p r e - F S A ma n d a t o r y min i mu ms m u st ap p ly to ea c h p er so n . See N os . 11-1 55 8, etal., U n ited S t a t e s v . Ho l c o mb , et al. , Ord er (7th C ir. J uly 7, 2011 ). N ow the U n ite d Sta tes go ver nm ent has change d i ts posi ti on. Com ple tel y. On J uly15 , 2 01 1, the Unite d Sta tes A tto rneyGenera li ssued a m em or andu m st ating h e has “c o nc l ude d tha t th e l aw r equi r es the ap p li ca ti o n o fthe Act’ s ne w mandat o r y min i m um s en te nc i ngpr o vi si o ns t o al l s e nt e nc i ngs thatocc uron or af t e rA ugu s t3, 20 10, regar dl e s s o f wh e n theo

f f e n s ec on du c tt oo k pl ac e .” (e m p h as is add ed). T he A tto rneyGenera ldi re cts pros ecuto rs to act ac c or d in gly an d co n c lu d es : Iam ta ki ng thi s pos i ti on be cau se it is re quir ed by th e law and our m an d ate to d o j us tice i n ev ery case . The go alo fthe Fai r Se n tencing Act w as to r ec ti fy a di sc r edi ted p oli cy . Ib el i ev e th atCo ngr ess i ntended that i ts pol i cy ofr est or i ng f ai rn ess inco c a in e s en te n c in g b e im p lem en te d im m ed iat e l y in s en te n c in gs th at ta ke p lac e a fte r th e b ill wa s s i g n e d i n t o l a w. The U ni ted S tat es gov er nm ent i s n ot al one. The Fi rs t Cir cui t r ule d afterus, ev en be f or e the Attorney General ’ s m em or an du m , thatthe FS A was not l i m i ted to defe nd ants w hose co nd uct o ccurr ed afteri ts passag e. U nite d S t at e s v. D ougl as , 6 4 4 F
. 3 d 3 9 ( 1 s t Ci r . M a y 1, 20 11 ). S o d i d th e E lev en th C irc u it. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Roj as , 20 11 W L 2 62 35 79 (1 1t h C ir. Ju ly 6 , 201 1). T h e T h ird C irc u itN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 21 h as rec en tly follow ed

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D ixon , ___ F. 3d ___, 2011 W L 34494 94 ( 3d Cir

. A ug. 9, 20 11)
. Onlythe E i ghth C ircuit has d ec lin ed to app ly th e FSA to crack offend ers se n te n c ed aft er its p as sa ge . U nited S ta tes v. Sid ney, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 W L 34772 00 (8th C ir. A ug . 10, 2011 ). Att ac hi ngthe Att o r ne y Ge ne r al ’ s m emor an dum , the g o ve r nm en t fi l ed a N o ti ce o fCh an ged Po si ti o n inf or m i ng us of i ts new posi ti on re gar ding these f our d efendants. I t has done the sa m e thi ng i n other case s a s w ell

. De sp ite the govern m en t’s position th a t the FSA appli es i n sent encin gs aft eri ts passag e incl ud i ng the se, the l aw o fo ur ci rcui t r em ai ns the sa m e. There i s a n unfi l l ed vaca ncy o n ou r cour t, so we have an equalnum bero fact i ve j ud ges . H alf of the a cti ve j udg es o n thi s c o ur t, i nc l udi ngthe t wo who wer e o n the o r i g i na lpa ne li n Fish er, v o te d t o rehear th es e co ns o l i da t e d c a s e s e n b a nc . Ind e e d, the c ha ng e s i n the l a nd

sc ap e t h a t h av e t ak en p lac e a fte r ou r ru lin g a re sign ific a nt
. Ce r t a i nly o uro b l i g a t i o n i s t o e v a l ua t e the me r i ts o fthe st atut e o ur se l ve s, b utthe g o ve r nm en t’ s “c o nfes si o ns ofer ro r ar e, o fco urse , g i ven g re at w ei ght. ” Si b r on v. New Yo rk, 392 U .S. 40 , 58 (1 96 8); a cco rd Yo un g v . U nit ed Sta tes , 315 U
. S. 257, 258-59 (1942 ). Bu t hal f does not a m aj or i ty m ake , and s o it is not enough t o obt ai n a r ehear i ng en banc in o ur co urt. Ibel i eve o ur ci rcu it sh oul d ree xam i ne i ts posi ti on, es peci al l y i n l i g hto fthe e ve nt s sinc e o uri ni ti alde ci si o n, and that i t s houl d do so because o ur pos i ti on i s wrong. For the r e a s o ns Ie xp l a i ne d in my di s s e ntfr o m t he de ni al o fr eh ea r i nge n b an c i n Fish er, 20 11 W L 2 0229 59, a l o ng22 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

w i th tho se Iexpl ai n her e, Id iss en t fro m the denia lo f re hear i ng en banc.

III
. The h ei ghtene d m andator y m i ni m um s forcr ack co ca i ne o ffen se s wer e base d o n f al se a ss um pti o ns . The Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on know s thi s. See U ni ted S tat es Se n t e n c in g C om m iss ion, Rep or tt o Congre s s , Coca i nean d Federal Se nte ncing Po li cy( M ay 2002 ) ( “T he 1 00 -t o - 1 dr ug qu an tity w as es t ablished based on a nu m ber of beli efs ab o utthe r el at i ve ha r m ful ne ss o fthe t wo dru g s an d th e r e l a tiv e p re va len c e o f ce rt ain h ar m fu l co n d u c t a ss oc iated w ith th eir us e a n d distribu tion th at m ore r ec en t r es earch an d da ta no l o ng ers uppo r t. ”)
. The U n ite d S ta te s A tt or n ey G en er al k n ow s t h is. See S ta te m en t ofthe A tto rney General on the Pass age o fthe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act, J uly28 , 20 10, a vai l ab l eathttp: //w w w . j usti ce. gov/ op a/ p r/2 01 0/Ju ly/1 0-a g-8 67 .h tm l (“ T h e b i l l g r e a tly re du c e s the u nwa r r a nt e d d i s pa r i t y i n s e nt e nc e s f o rc ra ck and pow der c oca i ne o ffenses ”)
. Congress kno w s thi s. See, e.g., 15 6 Con g . Re g . 1 68 0 ( M ar . 1 7, 2 01 0) ( statem en t o fS en . Durbin, F S A’s a utho r, o n da y i t pa ssed the S en ate) ( “Everyday that pass es w i thout tak i ng ac ti on t o so l ve the pr o bl em i s an othe rda y tha t peo pl e ar e be i ng se n te n c ed u n d er a law th at virt u ally ev er yo n e a gr ee s is unjust
. . . . If th is b i l l i s e n a c te d int o law , i t w ill im m ediatelyensu re that every year, th ou san d s of p e o p le are tr eat ed m or e f airl y in ourcr i m i nalj usti ce s yst em . ”) (em p h as is a d d ed ). A n d so C on gr es s p as se d th e F air S en te nc i ngActo f2 01 0, whi chb ec ame l aw whentheN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 23 Pres i dent si gned i t o n A u gu st 3, 20 10 surr ounded by b ip ar tisan Congre ssi onall eader s an d th e A tt or n ey G en er al. Upon tha t si g na tu r e, Ib el i ev e th e F airS en te nc i ng A ct ’ s l o wermandat o r y min i m um s f o rc r ac kc o ca i ne offenders appli ed to al ldefendants se ntenced a fteri t. T h e o nl y r e a la r g u me n ta g a i n s ts u c h a r e a d i n gs t e ms fro m the gener alsa vi ng st atute , 1 U
. S. C . § 10 9, wh i ch Con g r es s pas se d a fte ra n 187 1 S upr eme Co ur t dec i si o n. W hen the offense i n the case w as com m i tte d, i t ca rr i ed a $ 5 0 0 t o $ 1 0 0 0 fi ne o r a pr i s o n t e r m o f thr e e to f i ve ye ar s. A fte r th e d e fen d an t’s ind ict m en t b u t b efo re tria l, Congre ss am ende d t h e penal ty provi si on t o a $ 300 to $ 1 0 0 0 fi n e a n d o n e t o fi v e y e a r s i n pr i s o n . T h e S u p r e me Cou r t r ea so ne d th at be ca us e th e pen al typr o vi si o ns o fthe tw o sta tutes co nfl i cted, the new st atute o perat ed as a re p e a l o f th e e ar lier o n e. It h eld as a re su lt th at “a ll c rim in al p ro c ee d in gs ta ke n u n d er [th e o ld st at u te ] fell” because , i t s ai d, “[ t] here can be n o l ega lco nvi cti on, nor an y v al i d j udg m en t pr o no unc ed upo n c o nv i ct i o n, unle ss the l aw cr eat i ng the offe n c e b e at the ti m e in exi stence
. ” U nited Sta tes v. T yn en , 78 U .S. 88 , 95 (18 71 ) . It th en d ire c te d th at th e in d ict m en t b e d ism iss ed

. Id. C on gr e ss p as se d th e g en er al s av in g s ta tu te in r es po ns e, r epe al i ngthe co m m o n- l aw pr es um pti o n. P as sin g t h e s t a t u te m ad e s en se in t h at co n te x t. See Ham m v. C it y o

f R ock H il l , 379 U .S. 30 6, 31 4 (1 96 4) (“ It w as m eant to obvi ate m er e t echni calaba te m ent s uch as th at il l us tr at ed bythe r ul e i n T yn en . ”)
. In re l evantpart, the s avi ng st atute pro vi des:24 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 The re pealo fany sta tute shal lnot have the e ffect to re l eas e o r exti ngui sh any penal ty, f or fei ture , o r l i ab i l i tyi nc ur r ed unders uchs ta tu te , unl es s th e re peal i ng Act shal l so express l y pr ovi de, and such st at u te sh all be tre at ed as st ill rem ain in g in f or c e fo r the purpos e o fsust ai ni ng anypro per acti on o r pros ecuti on f or the enf or cem ent o f such penal ty, f or fei ture , o r l i abi l i ty. 1 U.S
. C. § 1 09. The s a v i n gs t a t u t e , th e n, e n s u r e s th a tp r e - e x i s t i n gpe nal ti es continue, unl ess Congr ess l ate r dir ects o ther w i se. Befo re i ts change ofposi ti on, the gov er nm ent use d to p oin t u s t o a S u p re m e C ou rtsa vin g c lau se ca se , War de n, Lew isburg P eniten tia ry v . M a rrero , 41 7 U.S
. 653 ( 1974 )
. There , the Cour t r ule d against a pri sone r l ong- ago se ntenced who so ug ht to be ne fi t fr o m a ne w s tatute m ak i ng perso ns co nvi cted o fhi s o ffense paro l e e l i gibl e, wh i ch w as not tr u e at the ti m e he had been s entence d. That case co ntai ns the l anguage, “the s avi ng cl ause has been hel d to barapplicati ons ofam el i or ati ve cri m i nal se nt en cingl aws r epe al i ngha r sh ero ne s i n fo r ce a t th e ti m e of the cri m i nal offense. ” Id. at66 4 ( ci ti ng ca ses fr o m D. C. , S ec o nd, a nd F o ur thCi r cui ts ). Tha t st at ement is tr u e as f aras i t g oes

— a de s c r i pt i o n o fwh a tthr ee ci rcui t co u rt cas es i t ci ted f orthatpro posi ti on had done. A nd i t a ccurat el y desc ribes w hat the sa vin g c lau se can do

— i t ca n ba rthe appl i ca ti o n o fa l at ermor e l en i en t sente nci ng l aw wh en t he o ffense happ ened befor e i ts passag e. Bu t M ar r e r o di d no thi ngt o c ha ng e whatthe S upr eme Co ur t m ade c l ea ro ve ro ne hun dr ed y ea r s ag o : theN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 25 saving s ta tu te does not bara l ate r l aw ’ s l ower penal ti es fro m i m m edi ate l y t aking effect i fCongr ess w ants them to
. The S uprem e Cou rt exp l ai ned that bec a u s e t h e saving sta tu te “on ly ha s the f orce of a st atut e, i ts pr o vi si o ns c anno t j us ti fy a di sr egard o fthe w il l of Con gress as m an ifested eith er exp ressly or by ne ces s ary i m pl i ca t i on i n a s ub s e qu e nte na c t i o n. ” G re at N o rthern R y. C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 20 8 U.S
. 45 2, 46 5 ( 1908 ) (em p h as is a d d ed ); s e eal s o i d. at46 6 ( anal yzing wh ether sta tu te “ express l y o r by f ai r i m pli cati on” confl i cted with gener alr ule i n sav i ng st atute )
. M ar r e r o ex p li citly reaffi rm ed that pri nci p le. It state d that “ onl y i f[ the s tatute a ti s s ue the r e ] c a n b e s a i d byfair im pli ca tio n o r ex p re ss ly to confl i ct w i th § 109 w oul d there be re aso n to h old that [ the s tatu te a t is sue] supers eded § 10 9. ” 4 17 U
. S. at 65 9 n .10 (em p h as is a d d ed ). T h e Su p re m e C ou rtin M ar r e r o did notfi nd i n the new l aw a f ai r i m pli cati on th at C on gr es s w an t e d s om eo n e like M ar re ro to be p ar ole el i gibl e; i nd eed, the sta tute ther e had a saving cl ause of i t s o wn . T h e r e l e v a n tp o i n tfr o m M ar r ero for ou r c as e is that i t r eaffi rm ed G reat N o rthern

. And that re m ains the law

. Se eD ougl as , 644 F.3d at43 ; s e eal s o M ar ce l l o v. Bonds , 349 U
. S. 302, 310 (1955 ). S o Co ng r es s di d no t ne ed to s ayi n the Fa i rS en te nc i ng A ct, “thi s Act applie s t o any per son sente nced here

afterf orcr ack coca i ne o ffenses , e ven ifthe conduct giving rise to con viction took p lace before th is A c t’s p assa g e ,” f or i t to ap p ly in allsent en cings th ereafter. T hat woul d b e o ne wayt o do i t. Butthe S upr eme Court do es no t r equi r e i t. The o th erway, whi chha s th e ex ac t s am e e f f ec t, is for C on gr es s t o m an ifes t b y “ fair26 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 im p li cation ” its w il l to ext ingu ish t he higher m an d atory m i ni m um s forcr ack coca i ne o ffenses f oral ldefendants sente nced afterthe A ct’ s pass age . That i s the i m pli cati on o fthe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act.

I V. Only one re aso nabl e i m pli cation c an be draw n fro m se c tio n 8 of th e A c t, w h ich p ro vid es : S EC. 8
. EMER GENCY AUTHOR I TY F OR UNI T E D S T AT E S S E NT E NC I NG C O MM I S S I O N. T h e U n ite d Sta te s Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion sh all

— ( 1) pro m ulg ate the gui del i nes, pol i cy sta tem en ts , or am en d m en ts p ro vid ed for in th i s Act as s o o n a s pr ac tic ab l e, a nd in a ny eve nt notl ate r than 90 d ay s a fterthe date ofenact m ent o fthi s Act, i n acco rdance w i th the pro cedure setf or th i n sec ti on 21(a) ofthe Se ntenci ng Act of19 87 ( 28 U
. S. C. 994 not e) , as tho ugh the author i ty unde rtha t Act ha d no t ex pi r ed; a nd ( 2) pursuant to the e m er gen c y a uthor i ty provi ded under par agr ap h (1) , m ake such conf or m i ng am endm en ts to the F edera l sente ncin g guidel i nes a s the Com m i ssi on deter m i nes ne cess ar y to achi eve co nsi ste nc y w ith o th erg ui del i ne pr o vi si o ns a n d a p p l i c ab l e l a w.N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 27 Pur su an t to 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3553 ( a) ( 4) ( A)( i i ) , s en te nc i ng j u dges a re to em plo y the gui del i nes that a re i n effect on th e d at e o f se n te n c in g. Se eal s o U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 11( a)
. W i th that kn ow l edge, and i nvoking “e m er gency ” a uthor i ty, Congre ss dem anded thatthe l ower guidel i nes t ake effe c t i n se n te n c in gs “a s s oo n as p ra c tic ab le” an d w ith in ni nety days a t the abs ol ute l ate st. That m eans Congre ss w an te d gu id elin es ba se d on a n 1 8 :1 p ow d er /c ra c k ra tio to take effect ri gh t aw ay, even i n sen ten cings w he re th e offen d er’s cond uc t pre-d ated the A ct. (T h ere are bound t o be m any such case s i n l i ght of the fiv e-year sta tute oflim i tat i ons f ordrug offenses , 18 U
. S. C. § 3 282, and the t i m e i t t ake s t o i nvesti gat e a nd pro secute such cases

. ) The Com m i ssi on pro m ulg ate d new gui del i ne s c o n s i s t e n t wi th th e F S A o n No v e mb e r 1 , 2 0 1 0 , a nd these “be cam e a pp l i cabl e t o al ldefen d an ts sente nced aft er th at d at e, regardles s of when they com m it te d the ir crim es . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v . Watts , 201 1 W L 12 82 54 2, at *8 ( D. M ass . A pr. 5, 20 11)
. I t m ake s no se nse forCongr ess to wil lthatgui deli nes b as ed on an 18 :1 ra tio ta ke e f f e c t im m ed iat ely in sente nci ngs e ven forcr i m es com m i tt ed b ef or e the A ct ifthos e sa m e d efend an ts w ou ld be su bj ect to p re-FSA 10 0: 1 m an dat o r y min i m um s. W hy woul d Co ng r es s want that? T h at ki nd o fse ntenci ng sc hem e m ake s no se nse. W e a re r equi red to i nter pret sta tutes i n a way that doe s not l ead to nonse nsi calr esul ts. U n i t e d S ta tes v. R uth erford , 442 U
. S. 54 4, 55 2 ( 1979 )
. Congr ess ’ s wil lm ust have be ene i th er thatthe 1 8: 1 r at i o a ppl y t o a l lpe r so ns s en tence d afterthe A ct, o r th at the 1 8: 1 r ati o apply onl y t o perso ns wh ose co nd uct t oo k pl ace afterthe A ct.28 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 The l an g ua g e Con g r es s ch ose to us e su ppo r ts o nl y the f or m er . I t dem anded of the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on, “Use th e 18 : 1 r at i o . A SA P. ” Tha t m ea nttha t f o rs en te nc i ng j ud ges usi ng the new guidel i nes, “Use th e 18: 1 r ati o. A SAP
. ” The f ai r i m p l i cati on o fthes e dem ands i s that Congre ss m ea n t “U se the 1 8: 1 r ati o. A SAP ” in al las pects ofse ntenci ng. I t’s real l y the o nl y i m pli cati on that m ake s s ense. C o n g r e s s a l s o d e ma n d e d i n s e c t i o n 8 th a t th e C o mm i ssi on a m end i ts gui del i nes “ to achi eve co nsi ste ncy” w ith “a p p lica b l e l a w ,” m ea n in g t h e n ew st at u to ry m in imu ms . T h e d i r e c t i v e o f“ c o n s i s t e n c y ” fu r th e rs h o ws Con g r es s’ s wi l ltha t th e F SA be appl i ed to pe ndi ng case s, since the gui del i nes would be appli ed to pend i ng c ases. U si ng a pre- FS A 10 0: 1 m i ni m um co up l ed w i th an 18: 1 guidel i ne to deci de a s en tence does not “a c h iev e co n sis te n c y.” It ac h iev es th e o p p os ite
. C f. A bbo tt v. U nited Sta tes , 1 31 S
. Ct
. 1 8, 2 8 ( 20 10 ) ( r ej ec ting i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t “ wo u l d r e s u l t i n s en te nc i ng an om ali es C ong ress su rely d id n ot inten d ”). And i n sect i o n 1 0 o fthe F S A, Co ng r es s di r ec te d the Sen ten cing C om m issi on to stu d y the effects of th e FSA an d s u b m i t a r epor t t o Congre ss re gar ding the i m pact o f the c hanges i n federa l s en tencing l aw “[ n]o t l ate r than 5 y ear s a fterthe date o fenac tm ent o ft h is A ct. ” Un der our ci rcuit ’s ru l e, and i n l i ght o fthe fi ve- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons on drug o ffenses , “duri ng the ti m e per i od i n whi c h the S e nt e nc i ng Co mm i s s i o n i s s up po s ed to p ro d u c e a r epor t o n the effects o fthe FS A , the A ct wil l often b e inapp l i cabl e. ” U nited S t at e s v. D ixon , 2 0 1 1 WL 3449 494, at* 6.N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 29 T h e c o n t e x ts u r r o u n d i n g th e s t a t u t e ’ s p a s s a g e i s i mpo r t a nt t o o . Ex c e pt i o ns t o e v e n c l e a r s t a t ut e s a r e to be i m pli ed to pre vent “co nsequences obvi ousl y a t v ar i ance w i th the pol i cy ofthe enactm ent a s a w hol e. ” R uth erford , 44 2 U .S. at 55 2. T h e po licy d riv in g th e FSA w as t h e e l i m ina t i o n o f ma n d a t o r y mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e s th a t h ad no basi s in f act orl aw , were base d on f al se assu m pti ons, an d tha t Con g r es s an d the Att o r ne y G en erala nd the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssio n and the Pr esi dent al lbel i eve d wer e i nhe r en tly unj us t. C ong r es s st at ed i ts g o alf o rthe FS A i n i ts Pream b le: “T o re sto re f ai rnes s t o Feder al co ca i ne s en te nc i ng . ” C ong r es s be l i ev ed th atpa ss i ngthe n ew m an d at or y m in im u m s he lp ed res to re th at “fa irn es s.” A t a fu n d am entall eve l, then, as the A tto rneyGenera l ask ed i n hi s m em or andu m , and other courts askto o, w h y w ou l d C ongr ess want sente nci ng j ud ges to co nt i nue to i m pose sente nces that i t had al re ady d eclar ed to be un fai r? The r e i s no g o o d a ns wert o thi s que st i o n. T he f air, nec essary, and only i m p li cation f rom the FSA is that C ong ress ex p ecte d and i nt en d ed i ts m an d atory m i ni m um s t o apply i m m edi ate l y.

V. There ar e othe r ar gum ents that coul d b e m ade ag ai nst thi s r eadi ng, but n on e c onvince m e that the FS A does n otap p ly in al l se n te n c in gs aft er it be c am e t h e la w . I t is tru e tha t w ith a l in e d r a w n at the d ate of effect, th ere w ill be in st an c es w h e r e p er so n s w h o p led gu ilty ea rly30 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

o n i n the i rc a s e s o rwh o di d n o tt ry to evade c a ptur e do not benefi t fro m the new m andator y m i ni m um s, unl i ke othe rs wh o com m i tte d a c rim e o n the sam e day orev en wer e i nv o l ve d i n the s ame c r i m inal ac ti vi ty
. Buta l i ne m us t be dr aw n somewher e. W e ca nno t av o i d tha t. To dr aw the l i ne a t co nduc t, whenCongr es s’ s whol e po i nt w as to getr i d ofunj ust 1 00: 1-base d sentenc es , and to d o s o r i g h ta wa y, wo u l d me a n th a t“ th e l e g i s l a t i v e min d w i l lbe setatnaught. ” Gre atNor t he rn Ry. Co. , 20 8 U.S
. at 465. Congr ess ge ts to draw the l i ne, and i t dre w i t a t its p as sa ge . C

f. U nite d Sta te s v. A coff , 63 4 F
. 3d 200 ( 2d Cir
. 20 11) ( per curi am ) ( decl i ni ng to applyt h e FSA to defe nd ant w h o h ad al re ady be en se ntenced but had not yet exh au sted his app eals). So m e o f m y c olle ag u es co n te n d it w ou ld n otbe fair to g i ve l es s ti m e to the c o - co ns pi r ato rwho i ns i st ed o n a tr ial a n d w h o th u s w a s s e n t en c ed aft er th e F SA , w h ile gi vi ng m or e t i m e t o the c oo perat or w h o w as sente nced be f o r e th atdate. Butthi s f ai l s to t ak e i nt o a cc o unt tw o i m p or ta n t s ourc es offl exibi l i ty that ar e a vai l abl e t o the di str i ct c ourt
. Fi rs t, f orthe coo perat orse ntenced bef o r e the e ffe c t i v e da t e , the g o v e r nme ntc o ul d mo v e f or a s ente n c e be l ow the st atuto rym i ni m um o r ( m or e l i kel y) file a m ot ion to red u c e t h e se n te n c e u n d er Fe d er al R u le of C rim in al P ro c ed u re 35 (b )(2)
. See a lso F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 35(b)(4) (“ W h en acting u nd er Ru le 35(b) , the cou rt m ayr edu ce the s en te nc e to a l ev elb el o w the min i m um se nt en ce e st ab l i sh ed bys ta tu te
. ”)
. F o rthe pe r son s en ten ced a fter the FSA ’s effective da te, th e d istri ct cou rt st i ll h as the o pti o n o fc ho o singa s en te nc e ab o ve the gu id elin es ran ge , as lon g a s itst ay s b el o w th e n or m allyN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 31

ver y hi gh st atuto rym ax im u m , i fthe cour t thi nks that a high ers en te nc e i s appr o pr i at e f o rthe pe r so n who w ent t o tr i al. In sh or t, ther e i s pl enty ofautho ri ty to fi ne- tune i n the sys tem , and so the unfai rnes s t o w hi ch m y c ol l eagues a l l ud e i s unl i kel y t o com e about. N ordoes m y pos i tion m ean that a ny ti m e Congr ess re du ces a s entence f oran o ffense that the l ower penal ty ta ke s e ffec t in all se n t en c in gs im m ed iat ely . Th e F air Se nten c i ngAc ti s n o o r di na r y s t a t ut e . I tma k e s n o s ense f orCongr ess to m ake i t a n “em er gency ” t o get18: 1 guidelin e ra tio s in p lac e if it w an te d 10 0:1 m in im u m s it f ound inher entl y unj ust t o sta y. M aking itan “em er gency ” t o g e t1 8 : 1 g u i d e l i n e s i n p l a c e i fth e 1 0 0 : 1 min i mu ms stil l had effect m ake s e ven l ess se nse b ecause the gui del i nes were notthe bi ggest e m er gency . Dis tr i ct j ud ges ha ve bee n ab le to sen ten ce crac k c o c a in e offen d ers m ore co m par ab l y t o po wderc o ca i ne o ffen der s sinc e th e S up re m e C ou rtga ve th em th e d i sc re tio n to d o s o. See U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U .S. 22 0 (2 00 5); Ki mb r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85 ( 2007 )
. Congre ss knew th at. A ny one f o ll ow ing this issue kn ow s tha t. T he ad visory nature o fthe gu id elines m eans that i t was notthe gui deline s tha t w ere t he biggest im p ed im en t to “restore fai rne ss in Fed eral cocaine sen ten cing.” Th e 100:1 m an d atory m i ni m um s were the b i gge st probl em bec ause th ey w er e j ust th at, m andator y. Even kno w i ng tha t, Congr ess m ade ge tting m or e e q u itabl e guidel i nes into pla ce a m att ero fem er gency . I fgetting o nl y- advi sory guidelin es in t o p lac e w as a m at te r of e m er ge n c y, ta kin g 1 00 :1 m a nd a t o r y mi ni mums o ff the b o o k s mus t ha v e bee n w hat, a code blue?32 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 To poi nt to Neal v. U nited Sta tes , 51 6 U.S
. 28 4 ( 1996 ) , as su pp or ti ng a contr ar y re ading i s to m i ss the poin t. In Ne al , the C ou rt held that the Sen ten cing C om m issi on’s m etho d o fc al cul at i ngLS D wei g htdi dn’ t co nt r o lthe wei g ht ca l cul at i o n f o r pur po se s o f a st atut e se tt ing m an d atory m inim um sent en ces. 516 U
. S. at 294-95. Th at’s obvi ous. B u t ou r case i s about w hat C o ng ress di d, not the S entencing C om m i ssi on. There was no chang e t o a st atut o r y mandat o r y min i m um o rmaxi m um i n Ne al

. See i d. T h e o n l y c h a n g e th e r e wa s ma d e b y th e S e n t e n c i ng C om m iss ion
. Se ei d. at 292- 94. Se cti on 8 m att er s because i t’ s what C o ng ress s a i d , and wh a tC o n g r e s s s a i d s h o ws i t wanted the new sente nces i n effect ri ght a w ay. And to em pha si ze the 2 00 7 amendment s to the s en te nc i ngg ui del i ne s al so m i ss es the mar k

. De spi te the changes i n offense l eve l s that re sul ted fro m thos e 2007 a men dme nt s , “ [ t ] he a men de d G ui de l i ne s s t i l lp r oduc e [ d] s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e s k e y e d t o th e ma n d a t o r y min i mu ms i n the 1986 Act. ” Kim b r ough , 552 U .S. at 9 9 n .10 . Th e o n ly differ en c e was thatunder the 20 07 am ended guidel i nes, “the 5-and 50- gr am q u anti ti es produce[ d] ‘ base offense l eve l s co rr espondi ng to gui del i ne r an ges that in c lu d e[d ] th e s ta tu to ry m an d at or y m in im u m p en alt ies ,’ ” as o ppo se d t o r an g es tha t sl i g ht l y e xc ee ded th o se s ta tu
to ry m an d at or y m in im u m s. Id. ( ci ti ng U ni ted Sta tes S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n, Re po r t to Co ng r es s: Co ca i ne a n d F ed er al Se n te n c in g P olic y 8 (M ay 20 07 )) (em p h as is om i tte d). T h at the b ase o ffense l eve lf oro ne wh o dist ributes 1 k i l ogr am o fcr ack c oc ain e r em ai ns the sa m e a fter the F SA and 20 10 gu i del i ne am endm ents i s a l so i r r e l e v a nt : tha ti nd i v i du a l ’ s b a s e o ffe ns e l e v e l, 3 4 , c o rr e-N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 33 sponds to a ra nge that e xceeds e ven the post

- FS A te n-y ear m an dator y m i ni m um , and does not cre ate an inconsi stency
. That the 20 07 gui del i ne am endm ents w er e no t lin ke d to a c h an ge in t h e s ta tu to r y p en alt ies is ob vio us

— ther e w ere no sta tu tory ch an ges to th e m an d atory m in im u m s in 20 07 . A n d so , d e s p ite m y c olle ag u es ’ reliance o n them , the 2007am en d m en ts di d not pro du ce th e i l l o g i c a l d i s p a r i t y b e t we e n th e s t a t u t o r y min i mu ms an d the g ui del i ne r an g es tha t o urr ul e i n Fish er per p etuate s, and do notas si st u s in deter m i ni ng wh ether Se cti on 8 o fthe FS A , wh i c h se eks to achi eve co nsi ste ncy, i s a “f ai r i m pli cati on” und erthe Sav i ngs S tatute. A n d , as I h a ve alre ad y d isc u ss ed , a co n tr ar y re su lt is no ns en si ca l

. Anth o ny Cl ar dy’ s ca se i l l us tr at es tha t. The Sen ten cing Com m issi on acted urge nt ly at C o ng ress’s dir ecti on a nd pro m ulg ate d new gui del i nes forcr ack co ca i ne o ffen se s o n N ovem be r1 , 2 01 0. Cl ar dy was s en te nc ed after t ha t. The di st r i ctc o ur t j udg e l o o k ed to the n e w g u i d e l i n e s r e c o mme n d e d b y th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mm i ssi on, as al lag re e he shoul d d o. These gui del i nes w er e “ consi ste n[t ] ” with the ra ti os re fl ecte d i n the new m andator y m i ni m um s a s C ongr ess had dir ecte d they be. A nd wh at did the gui del i nes r eco m m end fo r Clar dy’s i nvol vem ent w ith 13 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne? A se nt en ce o f3 0 to 3 7 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t, e ve n i n l i g ht ofhi s pri ordrug convi cti on that co up l ed w i th m or e than 5 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne tr i gge re d a 120 -m on th m andato r y min i m um unde rthe o l d l aw. The ne ce ss ar y a nd f ai r i m pli cati on o f t h e FairS entencing Act i s that Co ng r e s s di d n o twa ntthe b a s e l e s s 1 2 0

- mon th m andat o r y mi ni mum tha t e xi s t e d b e f o r e i t t o a pp l y t o Cl ar dy. It w an te d h im se n te n c ed m or e fa irly.34 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 T h a tC l a r d y t a k e s n o b e n e fi tfr o m th e F S A de m o nstr ate s a n ot h err eas on wh y Congr ess co uld nothave w anted o ur ci rcui t’ s inter preta ti on. That r eadi ng al so, as Iexpl ai ned i n m y Fish erdi sse nt, 2 011 W L 20229 59, at* 2, benefi ts the w o rsto ffen der s, a s th eya r e th e o ne s who st an d to be n efitfrom th e n ew gu id elin es sin c e t h e ir gui del i nes r ange w oul d be r educed, potenti al l y t o j ust abov e the statuto rym i ni m um . But f orso m eone l i ke Clar dy, wh ose drug q u an tity was to o sm al lto tr i gge r an y m an d at or y m in im u m se n te n c e a t a ll un d er t h e F air Se ntenci ng A ct, he re cei ves onl y the knowle d ge that the m embe r s o fthe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n thi nkthe j us t sen ten ce for him i s nea rly four tim es sh orter. F i nal l y, the g o v e r nme nth a d ini t i a l l y c i t e d Lan dgraf v. U SI Fi lm Produ cts , 51 1 U.S
. 24 4 ( 1994 ) to u s, an d i t i s no w the fi rs t case to w hi ch som e of m y col l ea gu es poi nt. Lan dgraf , of co u rs e, w as a c i v i l ca se . Th e C ou rth eld th ere tha t a pe titi one r could not ben efi t fro m m o re favorabl e dam age s p ro vi si ons i n the Civi lRi ghts A ct that too k e ffect w hi l e hercas e was o n appeal
. T h e F SA , in c on tr as t, is c l e a r l y n ota st at u te th at “w ou ld im p air rig h ts a par ty posse sse d w hen he a cted, i ncre ase a party ’ s l i abi l i ty f orp as t c ond uct, o r i m pose new duti es w i th r espectto tr ansact i ons al re ady co m p lete d.” C f. Lan dgraf , 5 11 U. S
. a t 28 0. N or doe s i t r ai se a ny c o ns ti tu
ti onalco ncer ns with its ap pli cati on, as the att em pt to i nv o k e th e Ci vi lRi g ht s Act’ s puni ti ve da m ag es pr o vi si o n, i d. a t 281, o r a hig herp e na l t y i n a c r i mi na lc a s e wo ul d. Lan dgraf al so say s th at , “ [ w ] hen [ an] i nter veni ng st atute au th orizes or affects the prop riety o f p rosp ective reli ef, appl i c a t i o n o fthe n e w pr o v i s i o n i s n o tr e t r o a c t i v e . ” Id. at 273.N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 35 The neces sar y i m pli cation o f the Fai r Se ntenci ng Act i s that i ts m andator y m i ni m um s a pp l y in al lse nt en ci ngs afteri ts pas sage. Decl i ni ng to r ead the FS A to applyto offen d ers li ke A nt hon y C lardy w ou ld “u nd ercu t the bil l’ s pri m ar y obj ecti ve, ” “ re sul t in sent enci ng ano m al i es Congre ss s u rel y di d not intend, ” be nefi t the “wors t offe n d er s,” giv e “ ris e to
. . . od d itie s,” an d “n otn ec es sa rily p r o mo t e mo r e e q u i t ab l e o u t c o me s . ” T h o s e a r e n o tmy w or ds. They a re the w or ds ofthe Supre m e Court fro m j us t las t y e a r , w he n it rej ecte d a read ing of a m an d atory m in im u m st at u te th at w ou ld d o a ll th os e t h i n gs . See A bbo tt v. U nited Sta tes , 131 S. Ct
. 18, 27-28 (2010).

V I. T h e c on c lu sio n th at th e F air Sen te n c in g A c t a p p lies in sente ncin gs , a l lse ntenci ngs, afteri ts passag e i s no t re ac h ed j u st by m e, or m y c olle ag u es w h o joinm e. It is th e co nc l us i o n r ea ch ed bythe Att o r ne y G en er alo fthe U ni ted S tat es, and i t i s the o ffi cial p osi ti on the federa l g o v e r nme nt wi l l b e t a k i ng i n e v e r y fe de r a l c o ur tacr oss the c ountr y. That i s s i gni fi cant. W e a l so ra re ly see such a co m ple te change ofco urse fro m it . O n e o ftho se ti m es w as las t yea r, with r espectto wh etherse ntenci ng j ud ges c ou ld co n sid er th e cr ac k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity inh er en t in the c ar eero ffender gui del i ne. The g overnm ent’ s chang e ofposi ti on , a lon g with the f act that no o therci rcui t had ag r ee d wi tho urho l di ngtha t j udges cou l d no t, l ed us to refle c t fu rt h er an d h elp ed u s c h an ge o u r m in d in U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 598 F.3 d 4 11 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)36 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 (en ban c). H ere too, It h in k the n ew de velop m en ts are w or th y o fr efl ecti on, and hel p show w hy o ur ini ti al i nter preta ti on w as not the r i ght o ne. ( I ’ m notsur e what m or e the A tto rneyGenera lneeds to say, o r w ou ld sa y t h a t i s a n y d i ffe r e n t th a n th a t s a i d h e r e o rb y my diss enti ng co l l eague, to hel p un derst and the posi ti on th atthe F S A to o ke ffec t in al ls en te nc i ng s upo n i ts e na c t me n t
. T he S o l i c i t o rG e n e r a l ’ s b r i e fth a ts o me o fmy col l eagues found to b e s o hel pfuli n re sol vi ng C o r n er m ade the s ame a r g um en ts a l r eady m ade b y the diss enter s in the denia l o f r eh ear i ng en banc in the case Co rnerov er tu rn ed

. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. We l t on , 58 3 F
. 3d 49 4, 50 0-0 4 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ).) A nd alt h ou gh Ithi nk the te xt o fthe sta tute i s cl ear a n d y i e l d s o n l y o n e r e s u l t, t o th e e xt en ti ti s u n c l e a r, we shou l d k e e p the r ul e o fl e ni t y i n mi nd t o o . Und e ri t, “am bi gui ty concerning the am bi t o fcr i m i nalst atute s shoul d be r eso l ved i n f avo r ofl eni ty. ” Sk illin g v . U nited Sta tes , 130 S. C t. 28 96 , 293 2 (2 01 0); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at es v. Gr ande rs on , 5 1 1 U
. S
. 3 9 , 54 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ I n th e s e c i r c u msta nces

— w here te xt, str ucture, and hi sto ryf ai lto es tabl i shtha t th e Gov ernm en t’ s po si tion i s una m bi g uousl y c or re ct

— w e a pp l y the r ule o fl eni ty and res ol ve th e a m b igu ity in [t h e d efe n d a n t ’ s] fa vo r.”). T h at ru le f avo rs a p ply i ng the FS A i n al lse ntenci ngs a fteri ts passa ge . Se eD ougl as , 64 4 F
. 3d at 44. That the A tto rney Gen er al, the F i r st, Thi r d a nd El ev en thCi r cui ts , a nd many dist ri ct c ourtj u dges a ro und the countr y hav e r eached th e co nc l us i o n o pp osi te fr o m us o nl y s uppo r ts a fi ndi ng th a t a t the l e a s t the r e i s a mbi g ui t y i n the s t a t ut e , a nd thatN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 37 i t i s no t cl ea rthe F S A sh ou l d no t apply t o e ve r y o ne se n te n c ed afteri t. Ind eed, the rul e o fl eni ty i s “ ro ote d inth e in st in c tiv e d ist as te ag ain st m en lan gu ish in g in pri son unle ss the l aw m ake r has cl ear l y s ai d they shoul d.” Uni t e d S t at e s v . R. L
. C. , 503 U
. S. 291, 30 5 (1 99 2) (plura li ty op inion) ( qu otations om itted ). I t i s th e i ns tinc ti ve di st as te a g ains t m ena nd women, but m ai nl y Afr i can- A m er i can m en l i ke A nthony Cl ar dy, l angui shi ng i n p ris on f orco m m i tting cr i m es ofcr ack ra therthan pow der c oca i ne, thatl ed Congre ss to pass th e Fair Sen te nc i ngAct
. Tha t Con g r es s want ed th e new “f ai r” se ntences to applyto everyonese ntenced after the F ai r Se ntenci ng Act becam e l aw , n ot j ust t o som e, is th e n ec es sa ry im p lica tio nof w h at it d id

.

P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, d i s s e n t ingfr o m de ni alo fr eh ea r i ng en banc. I j oi n J ud ge W i l l i am s’ s di sse nt unre ser vedl y, buto fferthi s m o des t su ppl ementto here xc el l en t o pi ni o n. Congre ss cannot bi nd succe sso r Congre sse s. The f act that the g ener alsa vi ng st atute sa ys that a r epeali s no t re tr oac ti ve unle ss the r epealing statute “e xpressly” sta tes that i t i s, 1 U
. S.C . § 10 9, i s s om e ind i cati on that a38 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

re peal i ng st atute wh i ch, l i ke the Fair S entencing Act of 2 0 1 0, Pu b. L
. N o. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 ( A ug . 3, 2010), d oes not say in s o m an y w ord s tha t its provisions are r et r o ac ti ve i s no t. Butthe abs en ce o f an ex pr es s st at ement i s no tp r o o fa nd di d n o tb i nd the Co ng r e s s tha te nacted the Act las t y ear . That m ay be why the Suprem e Cour t has sai d that a “necess ar y i m pli cati on” ofa new st atute woul d s uffi ce t o make i t r et r o ac ti ve no twithsta ndi ngthe savin g st atute’ s word “e xpressly, ” Gre atNor t he r n Ry. v. U n i t ed S ta tes , 208 U
. S. 452, 465 (1908 ), and w hy the C ou rt furtherr educed the f or ce o fthe saving statute byl ate r re p lac in g “ n ec es sa ry im p lica tio n ” w ith “fa ir im p lica tio n .” Wa rden , Lew isburg P en i t entia ry v . M a rrero , 41 7 U.S
. 65 3, 659 n
. 10 (1974). That i nter preti ve sta nd ar d i s m et in thi s ca se

— a co ncl usi on r ei nfo rce d by the princi ple that s ta tutes ar e no t to b e int er prete d l i ter al l y when l i ter ali nter preta ti on w oul d p ro du ce absurd r esul ts. “I fl i ter al ness i s s heer absur dity, w e a re to se ek som e o therm eani ng wh er eby re aso n w illbe i nsti l l ed and absur dity a voi ded

. ” O utlet Em b r oi de ry Co. v. D e rwen tM i l l s , Lt d. , 17 2 N .E . 4 62, 46 3 ( N
. Y. 19 30) ( Cardozo , C. J
. ) ; se e a l so Com m i s s i one rv. Br own, 38 0 U .S. 56 3, 57 1 (1 96 5); Gre e n v . Bock Lau ndry M ac hi neCo. , 49 0 U .S. 50 4, 52 7 (1 98 9) (c on c u rrin g op in ion ); Future Source LLC v
. Re ut e rs Lt d. , 312 F.3 d 2 8 1, 284-85 (7th Cir. 2002); U nited St at e s v. Bal i nt, 201 F.3d 92 8, 93 2 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); In r e Kais e r Alu m i num Corp. , 456 F.3d 328 , 338 (3d Cir. 20 06 ); F l yn n v . Co m m ission er, 77 F. 2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1935 ). “E ven strict const ru c t ionists rej ect li teral int erpreta ti on wh en the r esult w oul d be s ensel ess . ” U nitedN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 39 St at e s v. H uds pe t h, 42 F. 3d 10 13, 10 14 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) (en ban c). Co ngre ss i n sec ti on 2 o fthe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act, se ek i ngt o c o r r ec t th e unwarranted di spa r i tyi n pun i sh

m ent forcr i m es i nvol vi ng cr ack an d pow der c oca i ne, raised the dr ugqua nt i ti es ne ede d t o t r i g g erthe 5

-, 1 0- , and 20- yea r m anda to ry m i ni m um se ntences f oro ffenses in vo lvin g c ra c k im p os ed b y 2 1 U .S.C . § 84 1(b ). A n d in sect i on 8 i t di re cted the S entencing Com m i ssi on t o am end the r el evantse ntenci ng gu id elines w i thi n 90 days to conf or m them to the provi si ons of the n ew statute
. The Com m i ssi on di d so. The Com m i ssi on cannot am end the s tatute that i m posed the o l d statutor y m i ni m um se ntences
. S ee Neal v. U n ited Sta tes , 51 6 U.S
. 28 4, 29 4- 95 ( 1996 )
. ( Bu t that i s all that Ne al h old s, so far a s b ea rs on th is c as e.) T h e q u es tio n is w h et h er th e n ew st at u te , by c h an gin g t h e s ta tu to ry m in im um se ntences and or deri ng the C om m i ssi on f or thw i th to ch an ge its gu id elin es to co m p ly w ith th e n ew m in im um s, “fairly i m p li es” th at th e new m inim um s govern al lse ntences i m posed afterthe new s tatute t oo k e ffect. The de fen dan ts wer e se nt en ce d b etw een F eb r ua r y 7a nd M ar ch4 o fthis y ea r, a nd thus a fte rthe F ai rS en te nc i ng A ct was si gned into law on Au gust 3 o fl astye ar . Because th eir d ru g q u an tit ies w er e b elo w th e t rig ge r i n g lev els f orthe new m anda to ry m i ni m um se ntences , i fse ntenced u n d erthe am ended guidel i nes they c oul d each r ecei ve a s ubstanti al l y r educed sentence

. Se ntenci ng guidel i nes a re appli cabl e t o al lse ntenci ngs that occuraftertheyar e pr om ulg ate d reg ar dle ss of40 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 when th e cr i m es f o rwhi chthe s en tences a r e be i ng im p osed w ere com m itted

. 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(4)(A )( ii ). S o unl es s th e Act’ s r ev i se d m an dat o r y m i ni m um s en te n c es are als o a p p lica b le t o t h es e d efe n d an ts , th ey w ill re cei ve sente nces i n exces s o fthe sente nci ng gu id el i nes that Congre ss

— i n dir ecting the S entencing Com m i ssi on to m ak e ha st e to co nf o r m th em to th e ne w, m ore l en i en t st atut o r y m ini m um s ( m o r e l en i en t be ca us e o fthe e nhanced quanti ty thre shol ds)

— i ntended w oul d app l y t o such defendants. The perve rs e r esul ts ofa l i ter ali nter preta ti on a re i l l ustr at ed in t h e fo llow in g t ab les . Th e firs t is ge n er al, th e se co nd s pec i fi c to the f o urde fen dan ts i n th e pr es en t case s.

M a nda t ory M i ni mum ( m on t hs) G ui del i nes Range ( m on t hs) (C ri m ina l H ist o ry = II) Pr e - FSA FSA Pr e - FSA FSA 5g 60 none 57–71 24–30 15g 60 none 57–71 37–46 28g 60 60 70–87 70–87 35g 60 60 87–108 70–87 50g 120 60 108–135 70–87 100g 120 60 108–135 70–87 280g 120 120 135–168 135–168 500g 120 120 168–210 135–168 2 kg 120 120 210–262 168–210N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 41
D efen dant Q uant i ty Cri min al H i st ory C ategory FSA

G ui del i nes Range Pr e- FSA

M and atory M i ni mum % Inc re a se in

M i ni mum Sent enc e I f FSA In a pp li ca ble Chr i s t op her Ho l c o mb 20. 7 g IV 46–57 m onths 60 m onths 5% – 30%
Anthony Cl ar dy 13. 1 g II I 30–37 m onths 120 m onths 224% – 300%
Ken neth B r o wn 124 g VI 151–188 m onths 240 m onths 28% – 59%
Pa tr ic k M or an 23. 9 g V 70–87 m onths 120 m onths 38% – 71%

The r e i s no r el i an ce i nt er es t i n pun i sh i ngthes e defen dants under the o l d l aw . A nd i t would be f anc iful to sugge st ( and ther e is n o i nd i cati on) thatm em ber s o f Congre ss w ho o pp ose d the F ai r Se ntenci ng Ac t w er e s o chagr in ed thata hand ful ofdefendants m i ght g et l i g ht ers en te nc es dur i nga pe r i o d o ft r an si ti o n b ef o r e th e n e w l a w b e c a me fu l l y e ffe c t i v e th a t th e y e x e r t e d th e msel ves to preve nt the i ncl usi on in the A ct o fan e xpress st at ementtha t t he ne w gui del i ne s woul d o ve r r i de th e ol d statutor y m i ni m um s fordefendants se ntenced after the Act’ s e ffecti ve date. Real i sm sugg est s that the o pp one nt s wer e co nc i l i at ed no t bythe om i ss i o n o fa n e xpr es s st at ementa utho r i zingr et r o ac ti ve s en te nc i ngbut bys ec ti o ns 4 thr o ugh 6 o fthe Act, whi chi nc r ea se the pu ni shm ents f orso m e drug offenses . I t woul d no t be a rbi tr ary t o g i ve the se de fen dan ts the benefi t o fthe new l aw an d the new gui del i nes, but not defe nd an ts sente nced und erthe ol d l aw befor e the new one w as passed; f orto al l ow tho se defe nd ants to be42 N os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758

re sente nced w oul d w re ak havoc on fi nal i ty i n cr i m i nal proce edi ngs. I t i s t rue that the S entencing Com m i ssi on has decr eed thato n N ove m ber 1 o fthi s y earthe new g ui del i ne s wi l lb ec o m e r et r o ac ti ve , mean i ngtha t defen d an ts se n te n c ed u n d er th e o ld gu id elin es w ill be e ligib le to see k r ese ntenci ng un der the new ones. But thos e defen dan ts , i fth ei rc r i m es pr eda te d the e ffec ti ve da te o fthe F ai r S e n t e n c i n g Ac t, wi l l c o n t i n u e t o b e s u bj e c t t o t he o l d s ta tu to r y min i m um s en te nc es . As a res ul t, the num bero fdefendants el i gibl e t o be r ese ntenced wil lbe, inth e C om m is s i on ’s e st im at ion, m an ag ea b le (a p p ro x ima t e l y 1 2 , 0 0 0 )
. S e e N e ws R e l e a s e , “ U. S
. S e n t e n c i n gC o mm i ssi on Votes U nani m ousl y t o A pp l y F ai r Se ntenci ng Act of20 10 A m endm ent t o the F edera lS entencing Guidel i nes Ret r o acti vel y” ( J une 30, 20 11) , ww w . ussc. gov/ Legi sl ati ve_ and_Pu bl i c_A ff a i r s / Ne w sr oo m /Pr ess _Rel eas es/ 2011 0630 _P ress_R elease.pd f (visi ted J uly 30, 2011). A ll th at ca n be sa id in fa vo r of p u n is h i n g u n d er th e o ld l aw defendant s no t y ets en te nc ed when th e ne w on e to ok effe c t is th at if C on gr es s w e r e o m n ico m p et en t it w oul d, out ofan ab und ance o fcauti on, have “e xpressly” di r ec te d tha t se nt en ce s i m po sed afte rthe ne w l aw went i nt o e ffe c tw o u l d b e s u bj e c tt o th e g u i d e l i n e a me n dm en ts tha t th e n ew l aw o r daine d. An o m ni co m pet en t Co ng r e s s , l e a v i ngn o thingt o c ha nc e , wo ul d h a v e m a de th is exp ress stat em en t e v enthou gh the Su p rem e C ou rt ha s sa i d i n G reat N o rthern a nd M ar rero that co urts sh o ul d t reat a “f ai r ” o r“ ne ce ss ary ” i m pl i ca ti o n in a ne w s ta tu te as suffi ci ent t o ove rr i de the saving st atute
. A few j ud ges m ay thi nk tha t Congr ess is om n icom petent; m or e pr ete nd to thi nk tha t

— whatthe y r eal l y thi nkN os. 11

- 1558, 11

- 1559 , 11

- 1586 & 11

- 1758 43 being th at li teral int erp retation of statu tes is nece ssary to s a v e the n a t i o n fr o m j ud i c i a lty r a nn y . S uc h questi onabl e thi n kin g c an l ead to gr atui tously s i l l y r esul ts i n part i cul arcas es

— these cas es, f orexam ple

.

8- 24- 11