Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Darnell FRANCE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-21
Citations: 471 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 10-2606
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Darnell FRANCE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 497–497

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Darnell FRANCE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-2606.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 21, 2012.
BEFORE: COOK and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; STAMP, District Judge.
The Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Darnell France, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed on remand from this court. France entered a guilty plea in 2008 to a charge of distribution of fifty or more grams of cocaine base. He was classified as a career offender. After receiving a downward departure for substantial assistance, he was sentenced to 200 months' imprisonment.
On appeal, we vacated France's sentence and remanded for further development of whether one of his prior convictions was a violent felony for purposes of the career-offender determination. On remand, the government could not establish that the prior conviction was a violent felony. France was therefore resenteneed, after again receiving credit for substantial assistance, to a term of 73 months' imprisonment.
Now, on appeal from his new sentence, France argues that the district court should have applied the Fair Sentencing Act, because his resentencing occurred after the effective date of that Act. Although the government contested this issue in the district court, it has changed its position and now agrees with France that he should be sentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act. Accordingly, we vacate France's sentence and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Jones, 443 Fed.Appx. 994, 995 (6th Cir.2011).