Tyrone Mitchell was convicted and sentenced for drug and firearm offenses including a conviction under 18 USC 924(c). Mitchell initially challenged his sentence and won, but before he did, Congress passed the First Step Act.
On remand for resentencing, the question arose whether he should be sentenced under the amended 924(c), which reduced the mandatory minimum penalties, or the prior version that was in effect when he was initially charged and then sentenced.
The Third Circuit concluded that the amended version of 924(c) applies in cases where a defendant is being resentenced after their prior sentence, imposed before the First Step Act’s enactment, was vacated as procedurally unconstitutional.
Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Opinion by Roth, joined by Ambro and Bibas
Click here to read the opinion.