Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Joseph SANCHEZ, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marie VARGO, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-6619.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2015.
    Decided: March 18, 2015.
    Carolyn M. Sweeney, Joshua C. Toll, Sara A. Silverstein, Samuel E. Doran, Stephen D. Saltarelli, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Victoria Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Sanchez, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. Sanchez was convicted in 1999 of capital murder and related offenses and is serving a sentence of life plus eighteen years without the possibility of parole. The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether Sanchez is entitled to retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a mandatory sentence of life without parole for an offender who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense. Id. at 2461. Sanchez was seventeen when he committed the relevant crimes.

This case is governed by our recent decision in Johnson v. Ponton, 780 F.3d 219, 2015 WL 924049 (4th Cir.2015). In Johnson, we held “that the Miller rule is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” Id. at 221, 2015 WL 924049 at *1. In light of Miller, we affirm the denial of Sanchez’s § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.