United States v. Eldridge Sumlin


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Steven M. Colloton and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [3980906] [11-1356]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 11-1356 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldridge A. Sumlin lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2012 Filed: December 4, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. This case is on remand from the Supreme Court. In our opinion filed January 25, 2012, United States v. Sumlin, 453 F. App’x 668 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirmed Eldridge Sumlin’s sentence for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Sumlin then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Appellate Case: 11-1356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2012 Entry ID: 3980906 The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). In Dorsey, the Supreme Court held that the “more lenient penalty provisions” of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) “apply to offenders who committed a crack cocaine crime before August 3, 2010, but were not sentenced until after August 3.” Id. at 2326. Sumlin is entitled to relief under Dorsey because his offense occurred on July 22, 2010, and he was sentenced on February 8, 2011. Accordingly, we vacate Sumlin’s sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with Dorsey and the FSA. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-1356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2012 Entry ID: 3980906

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?