mackay appeal

Download MacKay appeal

Post on 18-Jul-2016

31 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Appeal by the U.S. Attorney's Office for Utah to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Dr. Dewey MacKay's conviction and sentence.

TRANSCRIPT

  • CASE NO. 14-4093

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff/Appellant,

    v.

    DEWEY C. MACKAY, III,

    Defendant/Appellee.

    On Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Utah, Northern Division The Honorable Dee Benson, District Judge

    BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    CARLIE CHRISTENSEN Acting United States Attorney District of Utah

    ELIZABETHANNE C. STEVENS Assistant United States Attorney 185 South State Street, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1506 Telephone (801) 524-5682 Elizabethanne.stevens@usdoj.gov

    Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant

    ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 1

  • i

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... iii

    STATEMENT OF PRIOR AND RELATED APPEALS ..................................................... iv

    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. 1

    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ......................................................................................... 1

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................... 2

    STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 3

    1. Conviction and Sentencing .................................................................... 3

    2. MacKays Direct Appeal ....................................................................... 5

    3. Petition for Writ of Certiorari................................................................ 8

    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................14

    STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................14

    ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................15

    The District Court Erred on Remand When It Vacated MacKays Enhanced Penalty Convictions for Drug Distributions Resulting in Death, Which Were Affirmed on Appeal under the Correct Legal Standard, Where the Scope of the Limited Remand was Confined to Narrow Resentencing Issues and the Courts Invocation of the Exception to the Mandate Rule for a Dramatic Change in Controlling Legal Authority Was Improper Because There Was No Such Change. ..........................................................................................15

    1. The Mandate Rule Limited the Remand to Clarification of the Sentence ..............................................................................16

    2. The District Court Incorrectly Concluded that Burrage Was a Dramatic Change in Controlling Legal Authority. ........17

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 2

  • ii

    CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................22

    ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    CERTIFICATION OF DIGITAL SUBMISSIONS

    ATTACHMENT A United States v. MacKay, 1:10CR00094-DB, Docket No. 377, 05/07/2014 Memorandum Decision and Order

    ATTACHMENT B United States v. MacKay, 715 F.3d. 807 (10th Cir. 2013), 04/20/2013 Opinion

    ATTACHMENT C United States v. MacKay, 1:10CR00094-DB, Docket No. 395, 07/09/2014 Amended Judgment

    ATTACHMENT D United States v. MacKay, 1:10CR00094-DB, Docket No. 396, 07/10/2014 Amended Judgment

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 3

  • iii

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES PAGE

    Burrage v. United States, -- U.S. --, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) ........................... passim

    Ford v. United States, No. 13-5997, 134 S. Ct. 1274 (Feb. 24, 2014) .................. 21

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) ............................................................... 8

    State v. Frazier, 339 Mo. 966, 98 S.W.2d 707 (1936) .......................................... 19

    United States v. Cummings, 395 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2005) ...................................... 7

    United States v. MacKay, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2014 WL 1813147 (D. Ut. 2014) ..... 12

    United States v. Mackay, 715 F.3d 807 (10th Cir. 2013) ............. 2-8, 16-17, 20-22

    United States v. Moore, 83 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1996) .................................. 13, 16

    United States v. Shipp, 644 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2011) ........................................ 14

    United States v. Ward, 626 F.3d 179 (3rd Cir. 2010) .............................................. 7

    United States v. Webb, 98 F.3d 585 (10th Cir. 1996) ............................................ 16

    United States v. West, 646 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2011) ........................................... 17

    United States v. Woodard, 938 F.2d 1255 (11th Cir. 1991) .................................... 7

    STATUTES

    18 U.S.C. 3553(a) ................................................................................................. 8

    18 U.S.C. 3742(b) ................................................................................................. 1

    21 U.S.C. 841 ........................................................................................................ 9

    21 U.S.C. 841(a)(l) ...................................................................................... 2-3, 17

    21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) .................................................................... 2-3, 10, 17-18

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 4

  • iv

    21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(E) ..................................................................................... 2-3

    28 U.S.C. 1291 ...................................................................................................... 1

    STATEMENT OF PRIOR AND RELATED APPEALS

    MacKay v. Drug Enforcement Administration, No. 10-9556

    United States v. MacKay, No. 12-4001

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 5

  • IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff/Appellant,

    vs. DEWEY C. MACKAY, III,

    Defendant/Appellee.

    No. 14-4093 BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3742(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1291, this Court has

    jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the district court sentencing

    Dewey MacKay to three years of imprisonment. The Solicitor General has approved

    this appeal. The courts order was filed on July 9, 2014, and the United States filed a

    timely notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

    Whether the district court erred on remand when it vacated MacKays

    enhanced penalty convictions for drug distributions resulting in death, which were

    affirmed on appeal under the correct legal standard, where the scope of the limited

    remand was confined to narrow resentencing issues and the courts invocation of the

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 6

  • 2

    exception to the mandate rule for a dramatic change in controlling legal authority

    was improper because there was no such change.

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    Following a limited sentencing remand from this Court, the district court

    exceeded the scope of the remand and ruled that exceptions to the mandate rule and

    the law of the case permitted it to vacate drug distribution convictions that had been

    affirmed by this Court. (Aplt. App. Vol. I at 313-330; Memorandum Decision and

    Order, Doc. 377 (Attachment A).) MacKays conviction on count one for

    distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance (oxycodone) with use resulting in

    David Wiricks death (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(l) and 841(b)(l)(C)), punishable by a

    twenty-year mandatory minimum and up to life, had been affirmed by this Court

    following MacKays direct appeal. United States v. Mackay, 715 F.3d 807, 813

    (10th Cir. 2013) (MacKay I) (Attachment B & Aplt. App. Vol. II at 348-88).

    Count two, distribution of a Schedule III controlled substance (hydrocodone) with

    use resulting in Wiricks death (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(l) and 841(b)(1)(E)),

    punishable by imprisonment up to fifteen years, also was affirmed by this Court

    following MacKays direct appeal. Id. In Mackay I, this Court affirmed MacKays

    twenty-year sentence on count one, but issued a limited remand. Having determined

    that the district court did not impose individual sentences on each count, and noting

    that the twenty-year sentence on count one was below the guideline range, this Court

    Appellate Case: 14-4093 Document: 01019355230 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 7

  • 3

    issued a limited remand . . . to allow the district court to clarify the sentence for the

    record and to explain why the sentence it imposes is sufficient, but not greater than

    necessary to satisfy the sentencing objectives. MacKay I, 715 F.3d at 846-47 &

    n.22. Following the remand,