Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-02300/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-02300-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

Doc. No. 45.

2

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

3

Doc. No. 57.

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

RICHARD C. RANDOLPH PETITIONER

 

VS. NO. 4:04-CV-02300-WRW

 4:02-CR-00216-01-WRW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (Doc. No. 49). The Prosecution has responded (Doc. No. 53). Also pending, Petitioner’s

Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. No. 54).

I. BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to bank robbery by force or violence, a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(A). On December 19, 2003, Petitioner was sentenced to 151

months in prison followed by 3 years supervised release.1

 Petitioner did not appeal his sentence.

In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner appeared to assert claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel and Sixth Amendment violations under United States v. Booker.

2

 However, in a

subsequent brief, Petitioner asserted that he, in fact, was not attempting to raise claims of

ineffective assistance.3

Case 4:04-cv-02300-BRW Document 2 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 3
4

Doc. No. 49.

5

Doc. No. 53.

6

28 U.S.C. § 2255(3).

7

Never Misses A Shot v. U.S., 413 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2005).

-2-

II. DISCUSSION

A. Guilty Plea

Since Plaintiff contends that he is not pursuing claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel, I will address only Petitioner’s alleged constitutional violations regarding the career

criminal enhancement.

Petitioner asserts that his constitutional rights were violated because he was informed

that “if he entered into a guilty plea with the government” he would not be subject to the “career

criminal enhancement.”4

 However, this assertion lacks merit, because there was no plea

agreement in this case.5

 Additionally, the Court asked Petitioner on more than one occasion

whether he wanted to withdraw his plea of guilty, and he declined. Petitioner has failed to meet

his burden of establishing that any constitutional rights were violated when he chose to plead

guilty and received the career criminal enhancement.

B. Blakely and Booker

For Petitioner to pursue this claim, the rights identified in Blakely and Booker must be

“retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”6 Petitioner asserts that the rulings in

Blakely and Booker are to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. However, the

Eighth Circuit has ruled that “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.”7

 

Case 4:04-cv-02300-BRW Document 2 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 3
-3-

Because Blakely and Booker do not constitute newly recognized rights by the 

Supreme Court “made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review,” Petitioner’s § 2255

motion is procedurally barred as to his Blakely and Booker claims.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Petitioner’s Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this case is

DISMISSED. Petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. No. 54) is

DENIED as MOOT, since objections have already been filed.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2006.

 

 /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 4:04-cv-02300-BRW Document 2 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 3