Whether violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution is harmless if the specific definition of the conduct was done by the court

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW | \ Is vidlation of the ex past Lacte clause of the 0.5, _ | Constitukion harm ess if the sogefic definition of 2x | DoS CackO Was done by the Coote | | | | _| | | | | i | | : TARLE OF CONTEM | QUESTIONS FOR REVEEWTR Tae CE CONTENES~ | TABLE OF AUTHORETEES ie t ONSTLTVITONAL PROVESTONSTZ | ComPoRATE OTS LOSURE STATEMENTaval | ONGuetSHED OPINTON OF OS O07 ow PUBLISHED COPINTON OF ELETH CLRCUTT-WEE, vii | CARTEES JOOGMENT TOBE REVIEWED1 | StateMEWT OF SURTSOECtrON| StereMEWt OF EAcTS—i QUESTION |U lL ConstrqutrowAc PRovESTON RELTBO QfoONfo | ARGoMENT 4~(3 | REASON WHY CERTLORARE SHOvT.O BE GRAITED[3 CONC LO STON = 1+ | | | | IL TABLE OF AUTHORTTLE S Pages Gg: A | BoySv. United States, IG U.S, Glo a635(1885)LO | United States v. Akpan, 07 £34 360,377(StaGr 2008)5 Tn: ted States V Berry, 745 Fed. Appx, 244, 23,(Gth Cir, 2014) YAO. Onused States uv, Boge: lles-Penu eld F.34 £63 (Sth Gx 2016)7 Unites States, Frances Calvan S64 £33 336 Gtr Gr 2017) 5,2, 5 TUnized States v, Pineiro, HO F.36 184,966 (Sth Cir, 2008)S Unites 48s v, Rodtiguez, 83) F.2d 162, 165 1, 50 7th Ge (467)" U.S. vs Grams, 966 F.38 G63,G87-68 (oth Cor, 2oc)(3 U.S. ZapeteGarcia, 447 6.34 57,60 (5+ Cir, 200b)| TAG Am dur 2h., Sec. (S5~ fl | 0. ongtitubion [Ares { Sec. 4| S | Art. Sec,2 7 ( | UntTeD STATES Code 1 ¥ 05.0, (acca ligo.s.c. 3953 ¢\(2Q: (9 UNITEO STATES SENTENCING 6 OPNEL TWES $5.6, {Ble tl )~ | () Fuss, G. 1 BL. UW Kt )= alo, U lo.$.3.G. 201, 1@)= 7 [9,56 2l(, 2C4)KA)b, 325:5.6, 2Cl, 2(4)(2)(9)6 | 0,5.5.G, 20, 2 (b\(2)(B)2 HussG. 21, 2¢4(2)0))an lL udS.G, 21.2% (b)(3)C0)4 | OSSG, ZELI C)> a i Pauses [05.5.6 chap 5, PeA| FEDERAL ROLES AE CRTMIVAL PROCEDURE | ted. Crm. P.S2@) ss —(‘S f\ | PROTECT Act dol €) ee ee | | | | . : | . j TIONAL PRovisroll \) Art, | See, US, Consritution | , | | | | | | [ | | | | | | = CORPORATE DISC LOSORE STATEMEL A corporate disclosure, Statement is not necessary | in this C662, ee | | | | Ce | | | i | | | | | | | | | : JNPOOLTSHEO OPINION OF _U.5,0 i The ngublished 2einion of the Oisteick Court iG as | Followed, ROK (36,137, | LOVRT! With reaara Ae this obsection, I guess Tt's | ping to howe, to be decided bythe Fifth Cirevit, heeaus 2 Nan Garlic, case the Same objection was Made cand | TL held that it Aik not violete the ex post facto | Clause of the Condtitetion, and dodge Lynn alse hed theese. t0 91 Watson, we heve two judges Saying if iS OF exgost Lacto, So T'm sure€, I Mean, pightly So joo''\ probably appeal. T weavlh expect that, L know ne had this 1$sv2 Come vp once befere, and then other \wdge after L roled held the Same wey, © Le se, my case is on appeal, 1 dont thin hers i er on apoeal, C+ § Cecent, | A yway, the EiGth Circoit (5 aware of it, So one _ ay of the other it will be settled, | PORLTSHED OPINTON oF THE ETH CIRCUEI Joaura~Resendez, repeats his objection on appeal, | Absent 2X pobt fatte concerns, a sentencing court Shoold _ pply the Gatelines Man Menual_ nm effect gr the time of | sentencing. Usited States v, Kimber, 67 F.9¢ $65, #93 (Sth Cir, 1494), Bot retrospective application_of G ighet Sentencing range onder an amended Sentencing | Guidelines violates Ex Post Facto clause, Peugh vi | United Slates , 564 0.5. 530, 541-56 (2613), There fore, aS | cotrectly conceded by the government, application o f | he Dol’ Goidelines manual to 2¢,504.Res endez*s Sent€nce® Violated Ey Posy Facto clevse, See United States | v. MatemezOyalle, 456 E33 264, 244-15 (Sth Cir 2odo) | | Nevertheless , this error was harmless, See feagh , S64 | (15, Gt 550 n, 6 Crecegnizing that an ex post facto | vie etion_in applying the Guidelines _1s harmless if “the record makes clear that the Ovstrt+ Court would have Imeoowda the same sentence onder the older, more lenient | ordelines thet it imposed onder the newer, more I punitive one’), Although the government did not argue hatm ES5 NCS We May conSider the issue $v pon t& See Ont@s States vi Groce, TF4 F346 241,296 1, 2 | (St, Cir 013), superseded by regulaten