USA v. James Hick
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60981 Affirmed] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP. Mandate pull date is 04/05/2012 for Appellant James Hicks [10-60981]
Date Filed: 03/15/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
March 15, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:09-CR-71-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
James Hicks pleaded guilty of distributing 247.2 grams of cocaine base. On
appeal, he argues that the district court erred by refusing to apply the Fair
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 03/15/2012
Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”). His argument is foreclosed by United States v.
Tickles, 661 F.3d 212, 214-15 (5th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed (Dec. 15,
2011) (No. 11-8023), and petition for cert. filed (Dec. 27, 2011) (No. 11-8268),
which held that the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants whose sentencing occurred after the FSA’s effective date but whose offenses occurred
before that date. Although the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari
in two Seventh Circuit cases that held that the FSA does not apply retroactively,
our precedent remains binding unless the Supreme Court overrules it. See
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
Hicks contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant him a
safety-valve sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
The only dispute is whether “not later than the time of sentencing” Hicks “truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence . . . concerning
the offense.” § 3553(f)(5). He argues that, regardless of how much he balked,
prevaricated, or misled federal agents, he is entitled to the reduction if he ultimately provided all relevant information before sentencing. This proposition is
doubtful in light of a defendant’s obligation to provide all relevant information
even if the government does not request it. See United States v. Flanagan, 80
F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). But we need not examine the degree of good
faith required, because the district court did not clearly err by finding that Hicks
never made full disclosure. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432-33
(5th Cir. 1995).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?