In United States v. Dixon, No. 10-4300, the Third Circuit held that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-220, § 2, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372 (2010) (“FSA”), signed into law on August 3, 2010, applies to all defendants sentenced after that date, regardless of when the criminal conduct occurred. The FSA reduced the crack/powder ratio to approximately 18:1, thus triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for defendants convicted of possessing 28 grams of cocaine and 10years for possessing more than 280 grams. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (“1986 Act”) previously mandated 5 and 10 year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of more than 5 and 50 grams of crack, respectively. In passing the FSA, Congress sought to ameliorate the disparities between crack and powder cocaine offenders. Dixon was one such defendant whose criminal conduct predated the FSA, but whom was sentenced after its passage.
Section 8 of the FSA gave the United States Sentencing Commission emergency authority to promulgate new drug guidelines compliant with the Act. The Commission responded by promulgating new, FSA-compliant guidelines implementing the 18:1 ratio, which took effect on November 1, 2010. Section 10 of the Act also directed the Commission to study and submit a report to Congress outlining the impact of the FSA on federal sentencing law. Later, on June 30, 2011, the Commission decided to apply the new guidelines retroactively to defendants sentenced before the FSA was passed. But, as the Third Circuit explained in a footnote, this has no bearing on the applicability of statutory mandatory minimum sentences. It should also be noted that after oral argument, the government changed its position on the issue and submitted a Rule 28(j) letter indicating that it now supports application of the FSA to defendants in Dixon’s position.
The main issue was whether the General Saving Statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109, precludes application of the FSA to defendants sentenced after its passage. Under the Saving Statute, the mandatory minimum sentences in the 1986 Act remain in force unless the repealing Act expressly provides otherwise. The FSA does not mention retroactivity in its text. But the Supreme Court has explained that the Saving Statute “cannot justify a disregard of the will of Congress as manifested, either expressly or by necessary implication, in a subsequent enactment.” Great N. Ry. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452, 465 (1908) (emphasis in Dixon). And in Dixon, the Third Circuit held that the necessary or fair implication of the FSA’s text is that Congress meant for it to apply to defendants sentenced after its passage, for three reasons.
First, Section 8's emergency directive to the Commission to “make such conforming amendments” to the guidelines that would “achieve consistency with other guideline provisions and applicable law” evinces Congress’s intent for the new mandatory minimum sentences to apply to defendants sentenced after the FSA’s passage. The “applicable law” is the FSA. Further, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 directs courts to sentence defendants under the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). So Congress knew the amended guidelines would be in effect when defendants in Dixon’s position were sentenced. Section 8's goal of achieving consistency between the guidelines and the statute shows its intent for the new mandatory minimums to apply. The Court reasoned that it would be nonsensical to apply emergency guidelines, while at the same time imposing mandatory minimums that diminish the impact of those new guidelines. Indeed, the old mandatory minimums would still control in many cases. Congress’s urgency in directing the Commission to promulgate emergency guidelines also demonstrates its intent for the new mandatory minimums to apply going forward. Finally, the Court reasoned, “[r]efusing to apply the FSA to defendants like Dixon would lead to a troubling result in which the Act would have little real effect for years, until the statute of limitations runs on pre-August 3, 2010 conduct.”
Second, Congress’s directive to the Commission in Section 10 of the FSA to study and report on the effects of the FSA further evinces its intent. “If the FSA’s provisions only apply to post-August 3, 2010 conduct, defendants sentenced in the coming years will be subject to the mandatory minimums in the 1986 Act. Consequently, during the time period in which the Sentencing Commission is supposed to produce a report on the effects of the FSA, the Act often will be inapplicable.” Such a report would be “incomplete” and “incomprehensible,” such that Congress must have meant for the new mandatory minimums to apply to defendants sentenced after the FSA’s passage.
Finally, the Third Circuit found the FSA’s title and stated purpose compelling. The Act was passed to restore fairness to federal sentencing. Congress simply could not have meant for district courts to continue imposing sentences that are unfair over the next five years until the statute of limitations runs on all crack offenses occurring before August 3, 2010. Accordingly, the FSA’s “plain import” directly conflicts with an earlier statute - the Saving Statute’s preservation of the old mandatory minimum sentences from the 1986 Act. As such, the FSA controls and all defendants sentenced after the FSA’s passage are subject to its reduced mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of when their criminal conduct was committed.