Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04140/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

*

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4140

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2005

Filed: September 20, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm. After Bevard’s conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Bevard later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, asserting his sentence violates

Blakely. The district court*

 denied Bevard’s motion holding Blakely does not apply

on collateral review. Bevard appeals asserting Blakely and United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), should apply retroactively for three reasons. First, Bevard

Appellate Case: 04-4140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953662
-2-

contends Blakely and Booker did not create new procedural rules because their

holdings were dictated by existing precedent. Second, Bevard argues that even if

Blakely and Booker created a new procedural rule, it is a watershed rule implicating

the fundamental fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings. Third, Bevard argues

Blakely and Booker created a substantive change in the law by changing the

punishment available for the crime. Bevard’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent

decision in Never Misses a Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2005). Like

all other circuits that have considered the issue, we held “the ‘new rule’ announced

in Booker does not apply to criminal convictions that became final before the rule

was announced, and thus does not benefit movants in collateral proceedings.” Id. at

___. 

We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Bevard’s motion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953662