Opinion ID: 609813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consecutive Sentence Imposed in Case I

Text: 41 Fagan asserts that the district court did not have discretion under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 to impose a sentence in Case I that ran consecutively to the sentence imposed in Case II and that, instead, the court was required to impose a concurrent sentence. We review de novo the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Uzelac, 921 F.2d 204, 205 (9th Cir.1990). 42 The district court is to apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing. United States v. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d 139, 140 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 443, 116 L.Ed.2d 461 (1991). Fagan was sentenced in Case I on March 19, 1990. The version of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 then in effect gave the district court discretion to impose a consecutive sentence. See United States v. Warren, 980 F.2d 1300, 1303 (9th Cir.1992). 43 Fagan's argument that the district court was required to impose a concurrent sentence is premised on a 1991 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. The 1991 version of this section provided that when a district court imposed a sentence on a defendant who was subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment: 44 if the prior undischarged term of imprisonment resulted from a federal offense and was imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to result in a combined sentence equal to the total punishment that would have been imposed under § 5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction) had all the sentences been imposed at the same time. 45 U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) (Nov. 1991) (as amended by U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 385 (Nov. 1991)). 8 The government concedes that if this amendment had been in effect at the time Fagan was sentenced, the district court would have been required to impose a concurrent sentence. 9 In addition, if the 1991 amendment to section 5G1.3 had been retroactive, Fagan might have been entitled to an adjustment of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b). It is clear, however, that the Sentencing Commission did not intend the 1991 amendment to section 5G1.3 to be retroactive, because the Commission did not include it on the list of amendments that are to be given retroactive effect. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (Nov. 1991); Mooneyham, 938 F.2d at 140-41 (only amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 apply retroactively); see also United States v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564, 572 (9th Cir.1993) (1991 amendment to section 5G1.3 does not retroactively invalidate a consecutive sentence imposed under the prior version). 46 Fagan's argument that the 1991 amendment should apply retroactively because it merely clarified the previous version of section 5G1.3, but did not substantially change it, is untenable. See Warren, 980 F.2d at 1303 ([t]he 1989 version and the 1991 version of the guideline differ dramatically); see also United States v. Martinez, 946 F.2d 100, 102 (9th Cir.1991) (where the circumstances surrounding the relevant guideline and its amendment fail to make clear that the amendment's purpose was merely to clarify rather than to alter pre-existing law, we will confer no weight on the subsequent amendment). We conclude that the 1991 amendment to section 5G1.3 did not retroactively invalidate the consecutive sentence imposed on Fagan. 47 This conclusion does not end our inquiry, however. Judge Pfaelzer decided to impose a consecutive sentence in light of Fagan's conviction in Case II on three counts, and in light of the sentence that Judge Tevrizian had then imposed. Because we now vacate that sentence and remand for Judge Tevrizian to reconsider the plea agreement and resentence Fagan, we conclude that Judge Pfaelzer also must be given the opportunity to resentence him. This procedure will allow Judge Pfaelzer to determine whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence in light of the sentence and the counts of conviction that exist after Judge Tevrizian renders his decision on remand. Moreover, this remedy most nearly restores Fagan to the position in which he would have been but for the government's breach of the plea agreement. 48 Finally, we point out again that section 5G1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines has been amended once more, effective November 1, 1992. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 (Nov. 1992) (as amended by U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 465 (Nov. 1992)). It is well-settled that, when sentencing a defendant, the district court must apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing. Mooneyham, 938 F.2d at 140. Several other circuits have stated the corollary to this rule: upon remand for resentencing, a district court must apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of resentencing. Gross, 979 F.2d at 1052 (explicitly addressing resentencing); United States v. Bermudez, 974 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.1992) (same); United States v. Edgar, 971 F.2d 89, 93 n. 4 (8th Cir.1992) (same); United States v. Kopp, 951 F.2d 521, 534 (3d Cir.1991) (same). These circuits have created an exception to this general rule for cases in which application of a later version of the Sentencing Guidelines would create an ex post facto problem. Gross, 979 F.2d at 1052-53 (instructing the district court to apply on remand an earlier version of the Sentencing Guidelines because application of the amended version could result in a harsher sentence); Edgar, 971 F.2d at 93 n. 4 ([o]nly when the retroactivity of a guidelines' change results in a harsher penalty, and thus an ex post facto problem arises, is the district court required to apply the earlier version); Kopp, 951 F.2d at 534 (those amendments not posing ex post facto problems will be in effect at resentencing). We agree with these decisions and hold that, absent an ex post facto problem, the district court must apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date of resentencing. Because the more favorable 1991 amendment never applied to Fagan, there is no ex post facto problem in resentencing him under the current provision, which is less harsh than the version under which he was originally sentenced.