United States of America v. Byron Wright

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0982n.06
Case Nos. 10-4422, 10-6471
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BYRON WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant (10-4422),
and
ERIC TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant (10-6471).
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTS FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO AND THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Circuit Judge; McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit
Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. This is a consolidated appeal. In 2009,
Appellants Byron Wright and Eric Taylor pled guilty to and were convicted of possessing with the
intent to distribute certain quantities of crack cocaine. In 2010, they were sentenced under the
statutory mandatory minimums that were in place at the time of their respective crimes. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2006 ed.). But between their convictions and sentencing, the Fair Sentencing
Act, 124 Stat. 2372, had taken effect. That Act set new and more lenient mandatory minimum
sentences for crack cocaine crimes. Wright and Taylor argued below, and argue now on appeal, that
their sentences should have been determined under the new standards set by the Fair Sentencing Act

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 10-4422/10-6471, United States v. Wright/Taylor
instead of the sentencing standards in effect at the time of their crimes. In Dorsey v. United States,
567 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2326 (2012), the Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Act’s lower
mandatory minimums apply to the post-Act sentencing of pre-Act offenders.
Accordingly, we VACATE Wright and Taylor’s sentences and REMAND for resentencing
consistent with Dorsey and the Fair Sentencing Act.
2

-- 2 of 2 --