Lemons argues that partial entrapment would provide this court with a middle ground between complete dismissal and no relief at all. “Such a middle ground should apply to people in Mr. Lemons’s situation who, while they are foreclosed from asserting a complete defense for technical reasons, are still clearly deserving of substantial relief.” The “substantial relief’ would be a judicially-enforced exception to the mandatory fifteen-year sentence for armed career criminals. Lemons asks this court to presume that Congress intended an ex ception to the Armed Career Criminal Act in order to avoid the fifteen-year mandatory minimum for defendants with a partial estoppel by entrapment defense, citing Sorrells v. United States. 287 U.S. 435, 444-45, 447, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932) (<HOLDING>). B Lemons contends that de novo is the
recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine recognizing the doctrine of entrapment and noting that it will always therefore be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to statutory language which would avoid results of this character holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes recognizing that the legislature can create statutory exceptions to atwill employment recognizing exceptions to immunity