USA v. James Hicks, No. 10-60981 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 15, 2012.
Download PDF
Case: 10-60981 Document: 00512064994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-60981 Summary Calendar November 27, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES HICKS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi No. 4:09-CR-71-1 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-60981 Document: 00512064994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2012 No. 10-60981 This court affirmed the judgment of sentence, United States v. Hicks, 464 F. App x 347 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), bound by United States v. Tickles, 661 F.3d 212, 214-15 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), which 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 but whose offense preceded that effective date. In United States v. Berry, No. 11-51050, 2012 WL 5906899 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012) (per curiam), however, this court announced that Tickles had been overruled by Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2326 (2012), which held that the more lenient penalties of the FSA apply to offenders who committed offenses before the effective date of the FSA but who were sentenced after that date. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Dorsey. Hicks v. United States, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 7401 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2012). 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.
