United States v. Edmond Stewart

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, BOBBY E. SHEPHERD and JOHN M. GERRARD (UNPUBLISHED) [3928201] [11-3245]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3245 ___________ United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Edmond Stewart, Defendant - Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: April 20, 2012 Filed: July 3, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and GERRARD,* District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. Edmond Stewart pleaded guilty to distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Consistent with thencontrolling Eighth Circuit precedent, the district court sentenced Stewart in September 2011 to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum penalty mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) at the time of his 2007 offense. However, the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which took effect in August 2010, increased the threshold quantities that trigger 5- and 10- year minimum penalties for crack offenses. Pub. L. * The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. Appellate Case: 11-3245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2012 Entry ID: 3928201 No. 111-200, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). Stewart appeals his sentence, arguing the higher (more lenient) FSA thresholds should apply to his sentence even though he is a pre-FSA offender. In Dorsey v. United States, No. 11-5683, slip op. at 2, 2012 WL 2344463 at *3 (June 21, 2012), the Supreme Court of the United States agreed. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing in light of Dorsey. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-3245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2012 Entry ID: 3928201

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?