No. 24-5016

Michael Medina v. United States

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-07-08
Status: GVR
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: circuit-split criminal-justice-reform first-step-act mandatory-minimum post-conviction-relief resentencing retroactivity sentencing-reduction sentencing-reform statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-06-26 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant initially sentenced prior to the FSA's enactment; whose sentence was then vacated by the trial Court and resentenced after the enactment of the FSA

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, §§ 401, 403, 1382 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses committed after the FSA’s enactment on December 21, 2018, and to “any offense that was committed before the date of enactment * * * if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” FSA §§ 401(c), 403(b). There is an acknowledged split between the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits and the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. The Third Seventh and Ninth Circuits have determined sections 401(c) and 403(b) of the FSA apply to a post-Act sentencing when the sentence was vacated preenactment. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have determined 401(c) and 403(b) of the FSA do not apply to a post-Act sentence when that sentence is vacated pre-enactment. The question is presented accordingly: Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant initially sentenced prior to the FSA’s enactment; whose sentence was then vacated by the trial Court and resentenced after the enactment of the FSA.

Docket Entries

2025-08-01
Judgment Issued.
2025-06-30
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Hewitt</i> v. <i>United States</i>, 606 U. S. ___ (2025).
2025-06-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
2024-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
2024-09-06
Memorandum for the United States of United States submitted.
2024-09-06
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2024-08-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 6, 2024
2024-08-01
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2024-08-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 7, 2024 to September 6, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 7, 2024)

Attorneys

Michael Medina
Lisa Rasmussen HoingGoddard & Hoing, P.C., Petitioner
Lisa Rasmussen HoingGoddard & Hoing, P.C., Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent