United States v. Clement

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 07-22-2013
  • Case #: 12-50189
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Per Curiam: Chief Judge Kozinski, Circuit Judges Canby and Tallman
  • Full Text Opinion

In accordance with United States v. Augustine, mandatory minimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA") do not apply to defendants sentenced before the FSA was enacted; however, since Augustine was decided, an inter-circuit split has emerged.

Orlando Clement appealed his sentencing; however the panel found the record indicated that the questions raised on appeal were "so insubstantial as not to require further argument." Clement's claims were foreclosed on by United States v. Augustine, which held that mandatory minimums in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA") do not apply to defendants sentenced before the FSA was enacted, and therefore the petition for initial hearing en banc was denied. The government's motion for summary affirmance was granted. However, the panel noted since the decision in Augustine, an inter-circuit split on this issue has emerged. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search