## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 37 37

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, * * App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. Lari ta Dun can , *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 17 , 20 11 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 12 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Lari ta Dun can pl ead ed gu il ty to po ss es si ng fiv e or m or e gr am s of crac k

co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 4 ( a )

. O n Nov em be r 22
, 20 10
, th e di st ric t

co ur t se nt en c e d D u n c an to 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, th e ap pl ic ab le m an da to ry 1

m in im um fo r of fen se s in vo lv in g m or e th an fiv e gr am s of co cai ne at th e ti m e Dun can

co m m it te d th e of

fen se , de cl in in g he r req ue st to ap pl y th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 20 10 (“ FSA”) ret ro act iv el y

. On ap pe al
, Dun can arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t err e d in

co nc lu di ng th e FSA, whi ch el im in at ed th e fiv e-year m in im um se nt en ce fo r of

fen se s

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, U n i te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.in vo lv in g m or e th an fiv e g ram s o f co cai ne , do es no t app ly ret ro act iv el y to he r. W e

affi rm

.

Our pr eced en t fo recl os es Dun can ’s a rg um en t th e F S A ap pl ie s ret ro act iv el y

. 2
Se e , e

. g

. , U n i te d St at es v. Si dn ey , 64 8 F.3 d 90 4, 90 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [T]he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act co nt ai ns no ex pr es s st at em en t th at it is ret r oa ct iv e, an d th us th e
ge ne ral sa vi ng s st at ut e, 1 U.S.C. § 10 9, req ui res us to ap pl y th e pe na lt ie s in pl ace at th e ti m e th e cri m e was co m m it te d.” ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Brewe r, 62 4 F.3 d 90 0,
90 9 n

. 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 10 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Uni te d
St at es v. Sp ire s, 62 8 F.3 d 10 49
, 10 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di n g th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act is no t ret ro act iv e an d th e de fen da nt is su bjec t to th e pe na lt ie s in pl ace at th e ti m e he co m m it te d th e cri m e); Uni te d St at es v. Fi nc h, 63 0 F.3 d 10 57
, 10 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s am e). Rel y in g on Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 74 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 22 0 (D.Me. 20 10 ),
Dun can arg ue s, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to ap pl y th e FSA ret ro act iv el y is

co nt rary to Co ng res si on al in te nt

. As we rece nt ly ack no wled ge d in Si dn ey , th e di st ric t

co ur t in Dou gl as , whi ch ha s no w be en affi rm ed by th e Fi rs t Ci rcu it
, Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 64 4 F.3d 39 (1 st Ci r. 20 11 ), he ld th e n eces sa ry an d fa ir i m

pl ic at io n o f th e FSA is Co ng res s i nt en de d t he ne w m an da to ry m in im um s to ap pl y to al l de fen da nt s

se nt en ced aft er th e en act m en t of th e Act. Si dn ey , 64 8 F.3 d at 90 7- 08

. W e reject ed 3
th is reas on in g in Si dn ey , ex pl ai ni ng : “ In th e en d
, th e fact rem ai ns th at Co ng res s

co ul d eas il y ha ve in cl ud ed a si ng le se nt en ce in th e FSA to giv e it ret ro act iv e effe ct ,

We no te th e Su pr em e Co ur t rece nt ly gr an te d cert io rari on th e is su e of t h e 2
ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n of th e FSA in two cas es , co ns ol id at ed fo r o n e ho ur of or al
arg um en t: Hil l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 41 7 F. App ’x 56 0 (7t h Cir. 2 01 1) , cert . gra nt ed , --- S.Ct

. ---, 20 11 W L 34 72 36 5 (U.S. Nov

. 28
, 20 11 ) (No

. 11 -5 72 1)
, an d Uni te d St at es

v. Fi sh er, 63 5 F.3 d 33 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ), cert

. gr an te d su b no m Dor se y v. Uni te d St at es , --- S.Ct . ---, 2 01 1 WL 34 22 12 6 (U.S. No v. 2 8, 2 01 1) (No. 1 1- 56 83 ).

Pres id en t Bara ck Oba m a si g n ed th e FSA in to la w on Aug us t 3, 20 10
, 3

s u r r o u n d e d by b ip art is an Co ng res si on al le ad ers an d th e Att or ne y Gen eral

. Pu b. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2 (Au g. 3 , 20 10 ).

-2

-bu t fo r wha te ve r rea s o n , it di d no t do so

. It is be y on d th e pr ov in ce of th is Co ur t to

d o s o no w.” Id

. at 90 8; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Orr, 63 6 F.3 d 94 4, 9 5 8 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 11 ) (“ Thu s, as we ha ve pr ev io us ly reco gn iz ed
, Co ng res s ex pr es se d no de si re in th e FSA th a t t h e l a w be ap pl ie d ret ro act iv el y , an d co ns eq ue nt ly th e fed eral Sav in gs St at ut e cl earl y

for ecl os es [de fen da nt ’s] arg um en t fo r ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n.” ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n t he jud gm en t.

Bec au se I am bo un d by Ci rcu i t p r e c ed en t, se e Uni te d St at es v. Brewe r, 62 4
F.3 d 90 0, 90 9 n.7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
, I r el uc ta nt ly co nc ur in th e jud gm en t. I writ e

se pa rat el y to ex pr es s m

y di sa gr eem en t wit h th is Co ur t’s co nc lu si on in Brewe r th e ab se nc e of an ex pr es s st at em en t of ret ro act iv it y in th e FSA pr ecl ud es it s retr oa ct iv e
ap pl ic at io n to de fen da nt s se nt en ced aft er it s en a c t men t

. Cu rren tl y , th e ci rcu it s are
sp li t on th is is su e. Co m

pa re Uni te d St at es v. Dix on , 64 8 F.3 d 19 5, 20 3 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th e FSA req ui res ap pl ic at io n of th e ne w man da to ry m in im um s to al l
de fen da nt s se nt en ced aft er th e en act m en t of th e Act, irr es pe ct iv e of whe n th e of fen se

co nd uc t oc cu rred ); Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 64 4 F.3 d 39
, 44 (1 st Ci r. 20 11 ) (s am e);

an d Uni te d Stat es v. Rojas
, 64 5 F.3d 12 34
, 12 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (s am e), rehea rin g

en ba nc gr an te d an d op in io n va cat ed
, -- F.3 d --, 20 11 W L 45 52 36 4 (1 1t h Ci r. Oct. 4,
20 11 ) wit h Uni te d St at es v. Fi sh er, 63 5 F.3 d 33 6, 34 0 (7 th Ci r

. 2 0 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th e ab se nc e of an ex pr es s st at em en t of ret ro act iv it y ba rs t h e ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n of th e FSA); Uni te d St at es v. Aco ff, 63 4 F.3 d 20 0, 20 1- 02 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Edwar ds
, 20 11 W L 34 19 61 7, at *5 (6 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s li p

co py) (s am e). The Nin th Ci rcu it ha s no t y et sp ok en on th is pr eci se is su e, se e Uni te d
St at es v. Ba pt is t, 6 46 F.3d 12 25 , 12 27 -2 8 (9 th Cir . 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th e FSA do es no t ap pl y ret ro act iv el y to de fen da nt s who se co nd uc t an d se nt en ci ng

oc cu rred pr io r to th e en act m en t of th e Act) (em ph as is ad de d)
, an d th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it
ha s de cl in ed to ad dr es s it , s ee Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 20 11 W L 4 09 80 28 , a t *1 (4 th

-3

-Ci r. 20 11 ) (s li p cop y ) (ex pr es si ng no vi ew on th e FSA’s ret ro act iv e ap pl ic ab il it y to de fen da nt s who se of

fen se s were co m

m it te d be fo re th e la w’ s en act m en t bu t who were

se nt en ced aft er th e FSA’s pa ss ag e). I a g r e e wit h th e ci rcu it co ur ts ho ld in g th e fai r

an d ne ces sa ry im

pl ic at i o n o f th e FSA is Co ng res s in te nd ed th e ne w m an da to ry

m in im um s to ap pl y to al l se nt en ces aft er th e Act’s en act m en t. See, e.g ., Dix on , 64 8
F.3 d a t 2 03

.

In Brewe r, th is Co ur t h e l d “t h e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act co nt ai ns no ex pr es s
st at em en t th a t i s r e t r oa ct iv e, an d th us th e ‘gen eral sa vi ng s st at ut e,’ 1 U.S.C. § 10 9,

req ui res us to ap pl y th e pe na lt ie s in pl ace at th e ti m e th e cri m e was co m m it te d.” 62 4
F.3 d at 90 9 n.7

. Bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of th e sa vi ng s st at ut e is no t

as na rro w as Brewe r m ak es it to be

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th e sa vi ng s st at ut e

“ can no t jus ti fy a di sr eg ard of th e wil l of Co ng res s as m an ife st ed
, ei th er ex pr es sl y or by ne ces sa ry imp li ca ti on , in a su bs eq ue nt en act m en t .” Great N. Ry

. Co

. v. Uni te d
St at es , 20 8 U.S. 45 2, 46 5 (1 90 8) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thu s, th e sa vi ng s st at ut e “ m us t be en fo rced un le ss , ei th er by ex pr es s de cl arat io n or ne ce s s a r y im pl ic at io n, ari si ng fro m th e te rm s of th e la w as a who le
, it res ul ts th at th e le gi sl at iv e m in d wil l be se t at

na ug ht by gi vi ng effe ct to th e pr ov is io ns of [th e st at ut e].” Id .; s e e a l s o Wa r de n, Lewis bu rg Pen it en ti ary v. Marre ro , 41 7 U.S. 65 3, 65 9 n. 10 (1 97 4) (s ta ti ng “ on ly if [th e st at ut e at is su e] can be sa id by fa ir imp li ca ti on or ex pr es sl y to co nf li ct wit h [th e

sa vi ng s st at ut e] wo ul d th ere be reas on to ho ld [th e st a t u t e at is su e] s up ers ed ed [th e

sa vi ng s st at ut e]”) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. I joi n in th e reas o n i ng of th os e ci rcu it co ur ts whi ch ha ve co nc lu de d, no twi th st an di ng th e ab se nc e of an e x pr es s st at em en t of

ret ro act iv it y , th e ne ces sa ry , f a i r , an d on ly im

pl ic at io n of th e FSA is Co ng res s in te nd ed fo r th e ne w m an da to ry m in im um s to ap pl y to al l de fen da nt s se nt en ced aft er th e en act m en t of th e Act. See, e.g ., Dix on , 64 8 F.3 d at 20 0- 03 ; Dou gl as , 64 4 F.3 d at
4 3- 46 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Hol co m b, -- F.3 d --, 20 11 W L 3 79 51 70 , a t *1 0

- 1 8 (7 th Cir . 20 11 ) (Will ia m s, J ., di ss en ti ng fro m de ni al of r eh eari ng en ba nc ).

-4

-As st at ed in it s Prea m bl e, Co ng res s p a s s e d th e FSA to “ res to re fai rn es s” to fed eral co cai ne se n t e n c in g. It so ug ht to do so by es ta bl is hi ng ne w m an da to ry

m in im um s an d exp ect in g sen te nc in g cou rts to be gi n app lying th es e ne w m an da to ry

m in im um s im m ed ia te ly. To ho ld ot he rwis e, be gs th e q u e s t i o n o th ers ha ve as ke d
be fo re m e: “ [W] hy wou ld Co ng res s wan t se nt en ci ng jud ge s to co nt in ue t o im po se

se nt en ces th at it ha d a lre ad y de cl ared to be un fai r? ” Hol co m b, 20 11 W L 37 95 17 0,

at * 13 (Will ia m s, J., di ss en ti ng ) (em ph a s i s i n o rig in al ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 74 6 F. Su pp

. 2d 22 0, 22 9 (D.Me. 20 1 0 ). I can no t fin d an ap pr op ria te

an swe r to th is qu es ti on in ou r Ci rcu it pr eced en t. Des pi te be in g bo un d by pr eced en t,
I can no t ag ree th e ab se nc e of an ex pr es s st at em en t of ret ro act iv it y in th e FSA m ean s Co ng res s in te nd ed fo r se nt en ci ng jud ge s to co nt in ue to im po se un fai r se nt en ces ev en aft er th e pa ss ag e of th e Act, fo r su ch a pr act ic e un do ub te dl y pr od uc es an ab su rd

res ul t. The refo re, I rel uc ta nt ly con cu r in th e jud gm en t.

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

-5

-