U.S. v. Bailey

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to reduce his 240-month term of incarceration on charge of distribution of crack cocaine, where term of defendant’s plea agreement allowed defendant to seek such relief if, as here, Supreme Ct. subsequently determined that Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) applied to his case. While Dist. Ct. treated defendant’s motion as request for relief under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2), Dist. Ct. should have treated defendant’s motion as petition for relief under 28 USC section 1955, based on defendant’s argument that his sentence was imposed contrary to law. Moreover, defendant’s motion should have been allowed so as to grant him new sentencing hearing where: (1) under Dorsey, 132 SCt 2321, FSA applied to his sentence since his offense occurred prior to effective date of FSA and his sentencing hearing took place after said effective date; (2) under FSA, defendant was subject to only 120-month mandatory minimum sentence instead of 240-month mandatory minimum sentence that Dist. Ct. believed applied to instant case; and (3) record did not indicate that Dist. Ct. would have imposed instant sentence had it been aware of lower mandatory minimum sentence.