From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Nallie

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Sep 22, 2010
Case No. 2:09-CR-240 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 2:09-CR-240.

September 22, 2010


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant's motion to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Doc. # 29) and Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 32). Defendant, Ronald E. Nallie, argues within his motion that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies retroactively. Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, 21 U.S.C. § 841. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument in United States v. Carradine, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 3619799, at *4-5 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2010). Applying the general savings statute found in 1 U.S.C. § 109, the Sixth Circuit held that "the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, contains no express statement that it is retroactive[,] nor can we infer any such express intent from its plain language. Consequently, we must apply the penalty provision in place at the time Carradine committed the crime in question." Id. at *5. Applying this rationale to the case at hand, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Doc. # 29.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Nallie

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Sep 22, 2010
Case No. 2:09-CR-240 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Nallie

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RONALD E. NALLIE, JR., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Sep 22, 2010

Citations

Case No. 2:09-CR-240 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 22, 2010)

Citing Cases

Neal v. United States

Neal does not raise any specific challenges to the PSR beyond this statement, however, and the Court must…