You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Moses

Citation: 434 F. App'x 563Docket: No. 10-3958

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; October 21, 2011; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Timothy Moses pleaded guilty to distributing 56 grams of crack cocaine in June 2009, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At that time, he faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years under the then-applicable statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Moses appealed his sentence, arguing that the district court should have applied the lower minimum sentence of 5 years established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which he claimed would have applied had his offense occurred after the Act's enactment on August 3, 2010. However, the court ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act does not retroactively apply to offenses committed before its enactment, even if sentencing occurs after that date. This precedent is supported by previous rulings in United States v. Fisher and other cases. Consequently, the district court's decision to sentence Moses under the prior version of the statute was affirmed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Sentencing Laws

Application: The court determined that the sentencing laws in effect at the time of the offense apply, not those enacted after the offense occurred.

Reasoning: However, the court ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act does not retroactively apply to offenses committed before its enactment, even if sentencing occurs after that date.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Application: The court upheld the imposition of a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence under the statute in effect at the time of the offense.

Reasoning: At that time, he faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 10 years under the then-applicable statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

Retroactivity of Statutes

Application: The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was held not to have retroactive effect on offenses committed prior to its enactment.

Reasoning: However, the court ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act does not retroactively apply to offenses committed before its enactment, even if sentencing occurs after that date.