USA v. Rondrick Gray, No. 10-11150 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 1, 2012.
Download PDF
Case: 10-11150 Document: 00512086357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED December 17, 2012 No. 10-11150 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RONDRICK LAMAR GRAY, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 6:10-CR-23-1 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This Court previously affirmed the sentence of Appellant because United States v. Tickles, 661 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), held that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( FSA ) does not apply retroactively to a defendant who is sentenced after the effective date of the FSA if the offense * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 10-11150 Document: 00512086357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 No. 10-11150 preceded that effective date. See 661 F.3d at 214 15. However, in United States v. Berry, No. 11-51050, 2012 WL 5906899 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (per curiam), this Court determined that Tickles had been overruled by Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). In Dorsey, the Supreme Court announced that the more lenient penalties of the FSA apply to offenders who were sentenced after the effective date of the FSA if the underlying offense was committed before the effective date of the FSA. 132 S. Ct. at 2326. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded this case for further consideration in light of Dorsey. We, therefore, VACATE the judgment of sentence and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Dorsey. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
