UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RONALD WALTER HAYES, SR.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to offenses committed before their effective date, and a sentence imposed under prior law does not violate constitutional rights.
Hayes was convicted of submitting false claims, an offense completed before the Sentencing Guidelines became effective. He was sentenced to imprisonme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Of Lenity cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald W. Hayes was convicted of aiding and abetting the submission of false claims to the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 287. Although his sentence of ten to thirty months’ imprisonment is well within the statutory maximum, see id. § 287, Hayes appeals on the ground that the district court should have sentenced him under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
As all the other courts of appeals to have addressed the issue agree, see United States v. Polk, 905 F. 2d 54, 55 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Newman, 889 F. 2d 88, 94 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Kendis, 883 F. 2d 209, 211 n. 1 (3d Cir.1989); United States v. Watson, 868 F. 2d 157, 158 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Stewart, 865 F. 2d 115, 116 (7th Cir.1988); United States v. Argitakos, 862 F. 2d 423, 424-25 (2d Cir.1988); United States v. Burgess, 858 F. 2d 1512, 1513-14 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Twomey, 845 F. 2d 1132, 1135 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Rewald, 835 F. 2d 215, 216 (9th Cir.1987), the Sentencing Guidelines apply only to criminal offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987. See Pub.L. 100-182, § 2(a), 101 Stat. 1266 (1987). The clear statement fixing the effective date of the Guidelines forecloses any resort to the rule of lenity. United States v. Stewart, 865 F. 2d at 118. Because Hayes was convicted of conduct that ended in April 1986, the Guidelines plainly do not cover his sentence. Although Hayes was also charged with a conspiracy ending after November 1, 1987, he was not convicted of that offense.
The sentence imposed does not violate Hayes’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. “[Tjhere is absolutely no constitutional authority for the proposition that the perpetrator of a crime can claim the benefit of a later enacted statute which lessens the culpability level of that crime after it was committed.” United States v. Haines, 855 F. 2d 199, 200 (5th Cir.1988).
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Burgess, 858 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Stewart, 865 F.2d 115 (7th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Rewald, 835 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1987)
- United States v. Twomey, 845 F.2d 1132 (1st Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Sterling Leroy Haines, 855 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Newman, 889 F.2d 88 (6th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Argitakos, 862 F.2d 423 (2d Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Watson, 868 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Polk, 905 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Kendis, 883 F.2d 209 (3d Cir. 1989)