US v. Collington: In 2010, just before the Fair Sentencing Act was passed, Collington was sentenced to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine. That sentence, part of a plea agreement, was below the statutory maximum (and recommended Guideline sentence) of 40 years. After the First Step Act was passed, Collington sought a reduction in his sentence, noting a new statutory maximum of 20 years. The district court concluded that Collington’s conviction was a “covered offense” and that he was eligible for relief, but ultimately determined not to disturb the 360-month sentence due to the “seriousness” of his offense and the fact that the murder cross reference in the Guidelines applied at sentencing.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of relief. In doing so, the court was required to “consider the limits of a court's discretion in disposing of First Step Act motions,” including “whether courts can retain a sentence above the retroactive statutory maximum.” After a thorough review of its First Step Act cases to date, the court concluded that Congress’ intention was to give “retroactive effect to the new statutory maximums imposed by the Fair Sentencing Act” and that, as a result, the district court must reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence to at least the top of the newly applicable Guideline range. That First Step Act relief is generally discretionary did not matter, as it was the new statutory ranges in the Fair Sentencing Act that controlled. Therefore, where Collington would face no more than a 20-year sentence “[i]f sentenced today” for his offense of conviction, the “district court erred by not resentencing Collington to – at most – twenty years’ imprisonment.” Secondarily, the court also held that First Step Act sentencing decisions would be reviewed using the same reasonableness standards as other sentences.
Congrats to the Defender office in South Carolina on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment