FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 42 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cr-1 40 81 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES LEVERN HUD SON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 11 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ch arl es Leve rnHud so n app eal s h is 24 0- m on th , m an da to ry -m in im um se nt en ce fo r (1 ) po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(A)(i ii ), an d (2 ) po ss es si on with in te ntto di st rib ut e 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) , (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). He ar gu es th atth 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) , whi ch was e na ct edaft er h is off en se co nduc t an d c on vi ct io n b utbe fo re h is sen te nc in g, re tro act iv el y lo weredth e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e fo r hi s o ffen se . In p art ic ul ar, h e co nt en ds th atou r st at em en t t o t he co nt rary in Uni te d Sta tes v. Go mes , 62 1 F .3d13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. d

en ie d , (U.S. Apr. 4 , 20 11 ) (No . 10 -9 27 1) , is di ct a th atwe are n ot ob li ga te d t o fo ll ow h ere. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. InOcto be r 20 07 , a co nf

id en ti al so ur ce (“ CS”) in fo rm edlaw en fo rcem en t th atHud so n was sel li ng lar ge am ou nt s o f co cai ne . The CS in tro du cedan un de rco ve r of

fic er (“ UC”) t o Hu ds on . On Oct ob er 2 5, 2 00 7, the UC ga ve Hud so n $1 ,90 0 i n e xc ha ng e fo r a b ag co nt ai ni ng 61 .7 g ram s o f cra ck co cai ne . After t he tra ns act io n, Hu ds on to ldth e UC th athe was i nt eres te d i n o bt ai ni ng fir earm s. Th e UC sa idth athe co ul d o bt ai n g un s fo r Hud so n.

2On Oct ob er 3 1 a ndNov em be r 1, 2 00 7, the UC an d Hu ds on di sc us se d ex ch an gi ng m

ul ti pl e fi rearm s fo r on e-h al f ki lo gr am of c rackco cai ne . On Nov em be r 1, 2 00 7, l aw en fo rcem en t ag en ts ex ecu te d asea rchwarran t o n Hud so n’s re si de nc e. They fou nda ba g c on ta in in g p owd er co cai ne an d a no th er ba g c on ta in in g wh atap pe aredto be , bu t was no t, ap pr ox im at el y 30 0 g ram s o f po wde r co cai ne . Office rs als o fo un d adi gi ta l s cal e, ba ki ng so da , a sm al l p ot co nt ai ni ng a crac k c oc ai ne “ co ok ie ,” a b ag of c rackco cai ne , a rif le an d amm un it io n, an d asm al l am ou ntof m ari juan a. The o ffi cers sei zeda to ta l o f 55 .6 gr am s o f po wde r co cai ne an d 1 9.8 gra m s o f cra ck co cai ne fro m

th e res id en ce. A fed eral grandjury in di ct edHud so n o n t hr ee co un ts : (1 ) po ss es si on with 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 § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ); ( 2) po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(B) (ii i); an d (3 ) po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e p owd er co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(C) . Hud so n p le d gu il ty to Co un ts 1 an d 2 an d, i n 2 00 8, h e was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r. In Ju ly 201 0, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d a28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n a ndord eredth at Hud so n wo ul d b e res en te nc edwitho utth e car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t. InAug us t 2 01 0, t he pro ba ti on off ic e d et erm in edth atHud so n h ada to ta l of fen se lev el of 2 9 andwas i n c riminal hi st ory cat eg ory VI. He facedst atut ory 3m an da to ry

sen te nc in g ra ng es of 2 0 years’ to li fe i m pr is on m en t fo r Co un t 1 an d 1 0 y ears ’ to li fe i m

pr is on m en t fo r Co un t 2 . His g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s yield eda se nt en ci ng ran ge of 1 51 -1 88 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h b ecame prec is el y 24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t due to th e o pe rat io n o f th e 2 0- y ear m an da to ry m in im um an d U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(b ). Hud so n o bjec te d tha t the FSA, whi ch was s ig ne d i nt o l aw on Aug us t 3 , 20 10 , hadretro act iv e eff

ect . There fo re, h e co nt en de d t ha t h e was no t s ub ject t o th e sp eci fie d m an da to ry -m in im um sen te nc es an d t ha t the gu id el in e ran ge of 1 51 - 18 8 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t s ho ul d b e res to red . Fol lo win g a rg um en t b y th e p art ie s atth e res en te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t i t was ob li ga te d t o i m po se a 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e. It s aw no in di cat io n tha t the FSA was m ean t t o app ly retro act iv el y

to off en se s co m

m it te d b efo re the effe ct iv e d at e o f th e Act . Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt s en te nc edHud so n t o 2 40 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II. W e rev ie w de no vo th e ap pl ic at io n o f la w to sen te nc in g i ss ue s. Uni te d St at es v. Alex an de r , 60 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. d en ie d , (U.S. Mar. 28 , 20 11 ) (No . 10 -7 69 0) . Dict a are th os e p orti on s o f th e o pi ni on th atare n otne ces sa ry to res ol ut io n of th e cas e. Uni te d Sta tes v. K al ey , 57 9 F .3d12 46 , 12 53 n.1 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) .

4“ The re i s n o re qu ire m en t . . . th atth e ex pl ic at io n o f th e g ov ern in g p rin ci pl e o f la w

m ay on ly be take n fr om

anarg um en t ad va nc edby a part y . Wha t m at te rs . . . is whe th er i t was ne ces sa ry to th e res ul t re ach ed , or, i n t he alt ern at iv e, co ul d b e di sc ard edwitho utim

pa iri ng th e fo un da ti on s o f th e h ol di ng .” Id . “ W e m ay di sr eg ardth e h ol di ng of apri orop in io n o nl y wher e th atho ld in g i s o ve rru le d b y th e Co urt s it ti ng enba nc or b y th e Supr em e Co urt.” Id. at 1 25 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Inpa rt, t he FSA reduc edth e d is pa rit y be twee n p owd er- a ndcrac k- co cai ne of fen se s b y in crea si ng th e qua nt it y

of c rackco cai ne requi redto tri gg er ea ch of t he en ha nc edpe na lt ie s i n § 84 1( b) . Se e FSA § 2(a ). The “ sa vi ng s cl au se ” in1 U.S.C. § 1 09 pro vi de s, The rep eal of a ny sta tu te sh al l n othave th e eff ectto rel eas e o r ex ti ng ui sh an y

pe na lty , for fei tu re, o r li ab il ity in cu rredun de r su ch st atut e, un le ss th e rep eal in g Actsh al l s o e xp res sl y pro vi de , andsu ch st atut e sh al l b e tr eat edas s ti ll rem ai ni ng in for ce fo r th e p ur po se of su st ai ni ng an y

pro pe r act io n o r pr os ecu ti on forth e en fo rcem en t o f su ch pe na lt y , for fei tu re, o r li ab il it y . 1 U.S.C. § 10 9. In Gomes , 62 1 F .3dat 1 34 4, t he de fen da ntch al le ng edth e subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of h is m an da to ry -m in im um sen te nc e, ci ti ng sp eci fic al ly the 10 0: 1 se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty betweencrac k- an d p owd er-c oc ai ne off en se s. Th e Gomes

5Co urt n ot edth atth e d is tri ctco urts ha ve auth or it y to va ry fro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge s i n l ig htof 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d the 10 0: 1 s en te nc in g d is pa rity , bu t n ot to sen te nc e b el ow m an da to ry m in im um s. Id. at 1 34 5. Itfurth er n ot edGom es ’s refe ren ce t o t he FSA in supp ort o f hi s ar gu m en t tha t the 10 0: 1 ra ti o i s u nf ai r, an d itqu ot ed§ 1 09 . Id. at 1 34 6. Th e Co urt co nc lu de d, The go ve rn m en t d idno t fi le a subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce m ot io n u nd er § 35 53 (e), an d h e d idno t qua li fy forth e sa fety -v al ve ex cep ti on un de r § 35 53 (f). Asi de fro m

th es e two st atut ory

ex cep ti on s, n o re le va nt au th or ity pe rm it s a d is tri ctco urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce b el ow t he st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um . . . . Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e FSA t oo k effe ctin 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 , 1 U.S.C. § 1 09 bars th e Actfro m

affe ct in g h is puni sh m en t. Id. Thu s, al th ou gh th e d efen da ntcit edth e FSA o nl y as p artof asubs ta nt iv ereas on ab le ne ss arg um en t u nd er § 35 53 (a), the Gomes Co urt re co gn iz edth at§ 35 53 (a) was of n o m om en t wh ere the de fen da ntso ug hta se nt en ce b el ow a st atut ory m in im um , anditrev ie wedin st eadwhet he r an y of t he th ree p ro vi si on s at is su e—§ 35 53 (e), § 35 53 (f), o r th e FSA— co ul d a ffo rdGom es rel ie f in th e fo rm of a lo wer s ta tu to ry

m in im um or asen te nc e b el ow t he ex is ti ng st atut ory m in im um . Se e id. In d oi ng so , th atCo urt co nc lu de d t ha t the FSA co ul d n otbe ap pl ie d retro act iv el y

to an y off en se th atwas c omm it te d p rio r to Aug us t 3 , 20 10 . Id. Thu s, al th ou gh th e an al y si s o f th e FSA was no t s tri ct ly neces sa ry to an swe r th e § 635 53 (a) a rg um en t ac tu al ly rais edby G om es , itwas n eces sa ry to a pr op er res ol ut io n o f th e cas e. Se e Ka le y , 57 9 F .3dat 1 25 3 n .10 . Thu s, i t was a ho ld in g, no t d ic ta , andwe m ay

no t d is reg ardit . Id. at 1 25 3 n .10 , 12 55 . Gomes co nc lu si ve ly hol ds th atth e FSA i s n otretro act iv e to off en se s t ha t were co m m it te d b efo re the effe ct iv e d at e o f th e Act . There fo re, the di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atHud so n was subjec t t o t he hi gh er s ta tu to ry m an da to ry m in im um s t ha t wer e in effe ctin 20 07 . The co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atit co ul d n otim

po se a se nt en ce l owe r th an24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Hud so n’s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

7