Legal Opinion

United States v. Dixon

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided August 9, 2011No. 10-4300PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

The question presented in this appeal is whether the more favorable mandatory minimum prison sentences imposed by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (the “FSA” or the “Act”) apply retroactively to defendants, like Kenneth Dixon, who committed their crimes before the Act became law, but who were sentenced afterwards. We hold that the FSA does apply in this instance. The language of the Act reveals Congress’s intent that courts no longer be forced to impose mandatory mínimums sentences that are both indefensible and discriminatory. Therefore, we will…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Kimbrough v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
  4. Marcello v. BondsSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  5. Warden v. MarreroSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Dorsey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. United States v. Sylvan AbneyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2016
  3. United States v. TicklesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
  4. United States v. Albert SavaniCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
  5. United States v. HolcombCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API