FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 11 54 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 03 03 -UU-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us HAYWARD COLEMAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 65 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 03 03 -UU-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers usPIERR E COLEMAN,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 8, 2 01 1)

Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntHaywardCo le m an(“ Hayward ”) ap pe al s h is 12 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ck
co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . App el la ntPie rre C ol em an(“ Pi erre ”) al so ap pe al s h is 12 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ck co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f § 8 46 . On ap pe al , bo th Haywardan d P ie rre a rg ue th at21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e b ecau se itm ak es arb it rary clas si fic at io ns , pu ni sh es de fen da nt s ata le ve l d is pr op orti on at e to th e se rio us ne ss of t he ir o ffen se s, i s irr at io na l, an d c au se s u nju stpu ni sh m en t. Haywardan d P ie rre fu rth er co nt en d t ha t th e se nt en ce re qu ire d b y

§ 8 41 (b ) is a cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, i n v io la ti on

2of

th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. In ad di ti on , Pie rre a rg ue s t ha t t he en act m en t o f th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act(“ FSA”) o n Au gu st3, 2 01 0, re qu ire s t he di st ric t co urt t o res en te nc e h im

un de r th e am en de d p en al ty pro vi si on s o f § 8 41 (b ). Fin al ly, Pi erre co nt en ds th atth e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e requi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o re se nt en ce hi m un de r th e le ss sev ere p ro vi si on s o f th e FSA. I. Pi erre an d Hayward ar gu e th at§ 8 41 (b ) vi ol at es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e be cau se itm ak es arb it rary clas si fic at io ns an d p un is he s d efen da nt s ata le ve l di sp ro po rti on at e to th e se rio us ne ss of t he ir o ffen se s. Hayw ardan d P ie rre fu rth er co nt en d t ha t t he sen te nc e requi redby § 84 1 i s i rrat io na l an d i s a c ru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, i n v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Fi na ll y , th ey arg ue th at be cau se th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s vi ews are en ti tl edto “ gr eatweig ht ,” we
m us t re co nc il e th e 1 20 -m on th sen te nc e requi redby § 84 1( b) with t he ran ge reco m m en de d b y

th e Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w de no vo co ns ti tu ti on al is su es rel at edto sen te nc in g. Uni te d St at es v. St eed , 54 8 F .3d96 1, 9 78 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e h av e uph el d t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of the form er cr ack -to -p owd er ra ti o fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es onnu m ero us oc cas io ns . Se e, e.g ., Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha nn a , 15 3 F .3d12 86 , 12 88 -8 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty between crac k 3an d p owd er co cai ne do es no t v io la te a de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s o r

equa l p ro te ct io n ri gh ts ); Uni te d Sta te s v. Bys e , 28 F.3d11 65 , 11 68 -7 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 94 ) (s en te nc in g d is pa rit y do es no t v io la te th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e); Uni te d St at es v. So lo mon , 84 8 F .2d15 6, 1 57 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (m an da to ry m in im um pr ov is io ns forcrac k c oc ai ne do no t v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t). Alt ho ug h t he FSA am en de d t he st atut e u nd er wh ic h Hayward an d P ie rre were s en te nc ed , bi nd in g p rece de ntho ld s t ha t t he pre vi ou s v ers io n o f § 8 41 (b ) do es no t v io la te th e Co ns ti tu ti on . II. Pi erre arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d re se nt en ce h im un de r th e am en de d p en al ty pro vi si on s o f § 8 41 (b ). Acco rd in g t o P ie rre, t he pre -FSA v ers io n of § 8 41 (b ) lo stan y

jus ti fic at io n o n the da y

th atth e n ew st atut e to okeffe ct . Pierre co nt en ds th atCo ng res s p as se d t he FSA to ad dr es s co ns ti tu ti on al in firm it ie s i n t he
no w-rep eal edcrac k c oc ai ne sen te nc in g l aws . In ad di ti on , Pie rre a rg ue s tha t 1 U.S.C. § 10 9 d oe s n otpre se rv e h is ha rs he r se nt en ce u nd er the rep eal edve rs io n of § 8 41 (b ) be cau se pre se rv at io n wo ul d s erv e n o l eg is la ti ve pu rp os e. As n ot edab ov e, we rev ie w de no vo co ns ti tu ti on al is su es rel at edto se nt en ci ng . St eed , 54 8 F .3dat 9 78
. De no vo rev ie w als o app li es to th e ap pl ic at io n

4of

law t o s en te nc in g i ss ue s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Al exa nder , 60 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 53 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d (U.S. Nov . 22 , 20 10 ) (No . 10 -7 68 0)
. On Au gu st3, 2 01 0, Co ng res s en act edth e FSA t o “ res to re fa irn es s t o Fed eral co cai ne sen te nc in g.” Pub . L. No. 11 1- 12 0, 1 24 Sta t. 2 37 2, 2 37 2 (2 01 0)
. The FSA in crea se d t he am ou nt s o f cra ckco cai ne requi redto tri gg er b oth t he 10 -y ear a nd5-year m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc es in 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b ). Id
. § 2( a)(1 ). Und er the FSA, th e 1 0- y ear m in im um sen te nc e o nl y

ap pl ie s t o o ffen se s in vo lv in g 2 80 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ck co cai ne , andth e 5 -y ear m in im um on ly ap pl ie s t o o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng 28 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne . Id
. § 2 (a)( 2)
. Pri orto en actm en t o f th e FSA, o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng 50 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ck
co cai ne tri gg eredth e 1 0- y ear m in im um . 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A) (2 00 9) . The FSA d idno t am en d t he requi rem en t t ha t, o nc e tr ig ge red , st atut ory m an da to ry -m in im

um sen te nc es ap pl y

un le ss th e g ov ern m en t fi le s a m ot io n fo r subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (e) o r th e d efen da ntqu al ifi es for
sa fet y -v al ve rel ie f un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f). Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Go mes , 62 1 F.3 d 1 34 3, 1 34 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0)
. The ge ne ral sav in gs st atut e p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt, t ha t “ [t]he rep eal of
an y st atut e sh al l n otha ve th e eff ectto rel eas e o r ex ti ng ui sh any pe na lt y . . . 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
. . 5. .” 1 U.S.C. § 10 9. Mo reo ve r, th e sa vi ng s s ta tu te di ct at es th atth e rep eal edst 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 s us ta in in g a ny 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 . . . .” Id
. In Gomes , we no te d t ha t § 10 9 b arre d the FSA fro m ap pl y in g re tro act iv el y

be cau se th e d efen da nt in th atcas e co m

m it te d h is cri m es be fo re the FSA to okeffe ct . 62 1 F .3dat 1 34 6. Und er the pri orpre ced en t ru le , we are b ou ndto fol lo w pri or pre ced en t “ un le ss an d
un ti l i t i s o ve rru le d b y

th is co urt en ba nc orby the Supr em e Co urt.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Vega- Ca st il lo , 54 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Bro wn , 34 2 F .3d12 45 , 12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )). Bec au se th e FSA i s s il en t o n t he is su e o f ret ro act iv ity , § 1 09 di ct at es th at Pi erre is no t en ti tl edto be res en te nc edun de r th e FSA’s l es s s ev ere p en al ty pr ov is io ns . The d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n i m po si ng a se nt en ce o f 12 0 m on th s. III. Fi na ll y , Pie rre c on te nd s t ha t t he Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e requi res ch an ge s i n th e cri m in al law t o b e ap pl ie d t o c as es on ap pe al at the ti m e o f th e ch an ge . Acco rd in g t o P ie rre, we m us t al so in te rp ret§ 1 09 co ns is te nt ly w it h t he di rect iv es of th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e. Pie rre co nt en ds th at , insp it e o f § 1 09 , th e FSA sh ou ldap pl y

to hi m ev enth ou gh he co m

m it te d h is off

en se whenth e p rio r ve rs io n of § 8 41 (b ) was in effe ct . 6Whe n i nt erp ret in g ast atut e, th e “ st art in g p oi nt. . . is th e la ng ua ge of t he

st atut e it se lf.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ru sh , 87 4 F .2d15 13 , 15 14 (19 89 ). Whe n t he st atut ory lan gu ag e is cle ar, i t i s u nn eces sa ry to co ns id er l eg is la ti ve hi st ory . Id
. W e h av e al so he ldth at“ th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e [i s] con cl us iv e as cle arl y ex pr es si ng leg is la ti ve in te nt , un le ss th e res ul ti ng ap pl ic at io n wo ul d b e ‘abs ur d’ or ‘int ern al in co ns is te nc ie s’ m us t b e res ol ve d.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Vea l , 15 3 F .3d12 33 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Pi erre ’s cit at io ns of l eg is la ti ve hi st ory fai l t o e st ab li sh eithe r th atth e fo rm er crac k- to -p owd er ra ti o v io la te s t he Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o r th atCo ng res s in te nd edforth e FSA t o app ly retro act iv el y to de fen da nt s wh o c omm it te d the ir of fen se s u nd er the rep eal edpe na lt y sch em e. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm Haywardan d P ie rre’s s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

7