10- 317

U SA v. D i az U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT

____________________ August Term, 2010 (Submitt ed: Dec ember

10, 2010 Dec ided: Dec ember 15, 2010) Docke t No. 10-317-c r

____________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appellee , -v- 10-317-c r STEVEN A. DIAZ , a/k/a Peto,

Appellant
.

____________________ Be fore : CABRANES, POOL ER, and WESL EY, Circuit Judges
. 1 Counsel for Appellant moves for permission to withdraw pursuant to An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 2 38 6 U. S. 7 38 (1 96 7) , a nd the Go ve rnme nt m ov e s f

or summa ry a ff ir manc e of an o rd e r o f t

he dis tr ic t 3 court (B uchwa ld, J. ) de nyingAp pe lla nt’ s mo tio n f

or a re du c tio n to his se nte nc e . We gra nt c ouns e l’ s 4 An de rs mot ion

and the Go ve rnme nt’ s mo tio n f or summa ry a ff ir manc e , int e r a lia , o n th e gro un d th at 5 Appellant is not entitled to the benef it o f t h e rece ntly

enac ted Fa ir SentencingAct of 2010. 6 Ap p el l ant was se ntence d befor e the e ffe ctive date of the Ac t, and the Ac t is not retroac tiv e. 7 8 The An de rs motion is GRANTED a nd the judg ment is AFF I RMED. 9

____________________ 102 1 2 3 4 YUANCHU NG L EE, Fe dera l Defe nders of New Y ork, Inc., 5 New Y ork, NY, for Appellant
. 6 7 ALVI N B RAGG, Assistant United States Attorney , for Pr e e t 8 Bha rar a, United States Attorne y for the Souther

n District of Ne w 9 York, Ne w York, NY, for Appellee
. 10 11 PER

CU RIAM : 12 Yu anc hungL e e , c ouns e l f or Ap pe lla nt, mov e s f

or pe rm iss ion

to w ith dr aw a s c ouns e l 13 pursuant to An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 3 8 6 U
. S
. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , an d th e G o v e r

nm e ntm o v e s f

o r s um m ar y 14 aff

irmance of an or der of

the district court (B uchwa ld, J. ) deny ing A ppellant’s motion for a 15 reduc tion to his sentenc e. The Gover nment argues, inter a lia, that the district court’s de nial of 16 Appellant’s motion for a reduc tion to his sentenc e should be a ffirme d beca use the F air 17 SentencingAct of 2010 ( “F SA”), whic h reduc es the disparity betwee n cra ck and pow der c ocaine , 18 is n ot r e tr oa c tiv e , a nd the re fo re , c ou ld n ot o pe ra te to r e du c e Ap pe lla

nt’ s se nte nc e , s inc e he wa s 19 convicted a

nd sentenc ed bef

ore the FSA wa s signe d into law. 20 Pur su ant t o th e g e ne ra l sa vin g s st atut e , 1 U. S.C. § 1 09 , “ [t]he repe a l of any statut e sh a ll 21 not have the e ffe ct to rele ase or exti nguish any

penalty . . . incurre d under suc h statute, unless the 22 repe alingAct shall so expressly provide, a

nd such statute shall be tre ated a s still rema ining in 23 forc e for

the purpose of

sustaining a

ny proper action or pr osecution for the enf orce ment of such 24 penalty [.] ” In this case, the F SA contains no express statement that it is intended to have 25 retroa ctive ef

fec t nor ca

n we infe r such intent fr om its l anguag e. As a result, the F SA cannot be 26 applied to re duce A ppellant’s sente nce be cause , inter alia, he was c onvicted and se ntence d befor e 27 the FSA wa s enac ted. See United States v. Carradine , 6 21 F .3 d 5 75 (6 th C ir . 2 01 0) ; United3 1 States v. Gome

s , 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (“[B]eca use the F SA took effe ct . . . af ter 2 appellant c ommitt ed his crimes 1 U .S.C. § 109 bars the Act fr om affe ctinghis punishment.”). 3 We h ave c on sid e re d th e re ma ini ngargume nts and c on c lud e that th e re is n o n on -f ri vo lou s 4 basis on which Appe llant could appea l the district court’s orde r deny ing his motion for a 5 r e d

u c t i o no f s e nt e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y, u p o nd u e c o n s i d e r at i o n , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D that the 6 An de rs motion and the motion for summary aff irmance are G RA NT ED , and the judgment of the 7 dis tr ic t c ourt

de c lin ingto r e du c e Ap pe lla nt’ s se nte nc e is AF F IRM ED
.