Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04982/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04982-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JACQUEEN GANDY,

Defendant.

 /

No. CR 03-00025 SI

(Civil No. 04-4982 SI)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S § 2255

MOTION 

On February 23, 2004, defendant Jacqueen Gandy filed a motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, which may be brought to challenge a sentence that is subject to collateral attack. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255. In response to a June 15, 2004 order to show cause, plaintiff acknowledged its inadvertent failure to

respond to defendant’s § 2255 motion and proposed to file an opposition no later than July 9, 2004. Plaintiff

filed its opposition on July 9, 2004. 

Defendant subsequently wrote a letter to the Court seeking an extension for her reply in light ofthe fact

that plaintiff failed to comply with the original briefing schedule in filing its opposition. Defendant’s letter

attached a document entitled “MOTION TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO

BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON.” Defendant’s letter is dated August 19, 2004. Inexplicably, the letter was

not filed with the Court until October 4, 2004. 

On September 14, 2004, in the interim between the date of defendant’s letter and the date of the

letter’s filing, the Court entered an order denying defendant’s February 23, 2004 motion for relief under §

2255. 

Following defendant’s letter filed on October 4, 2004, defendant wrote another letter to the Court.

This second letter, filed November 23, 2004, attached the same motion for supplemental briefing attached to
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1The last line of the attached motion reads as follows: “For all these reasons, the Defendant, Jaqueen

Gandy respectfully request (sic) the court to allow the addendum to her § 2255 in response to Blakely.” 

2Defendant makes references to “Appendic (sic), Jones and Montgomery.” 

2

the first letter. The Court characterized this November 23, 2004 filing as a § 2255 motion, which it now

considers. 

Admittedly, the events leading up to the present motion have been somewhat confusing. Defendant’s

first § 2255 motion was denied without the benefit of a reply brief. It appears defendant intended to include

as a basis for her reply brief the argument laid out in the motion attached to her letters filed on October 4 and

November 23.1 Instead, the Court has characterized the attachment as a new motion for relief under § 2255.

Normally, such a characterization carries adverse effectsfor petitioners giventhe limitations on § 2255 motions

established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). One such limitation is

the one-year period of limitation on the filing of§ 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff argues that,

because defendant’s conviction became final no later than 10 days after July 1, 2003, defendant’s November

23, 2004 motion is time-barred. Yet if this filing is considered a reply briefto the February 23, 2004 motion,

defendant would not be subject to this limitation because the February filing date would be operative.

However, regardless ofwhether the argumentsetforth in the attachment to the letters filed on October 4, 2004

and November 23, 2004 was made as a reply in support ofthe February 23, 2004 motion or as a new § 2255

motion, defendant’s argument fails on the merits.

Defendant’s new claim is that, in light ofBlakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),2 her sentence

was unconstitutional. A new rule of constitutional law does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review

unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001). The Ninth

Circuit has determined that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Cook v. U.S.,

386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying petitioner’s application for authorization to file a successive §

2255 motion);see also Carmona v. U.S., 390 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2004); Simpson v. U.S., 376 F.3d 679 (7th

Cir. 2004); Leonard v. U.S., 383 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2004). In U.S. v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),

the Supreme Court held that the new law applies to cases on directreview. Id. at 769. The Ninth Circuit has

held thatBlakely announced a new constitutionalrule of criminalprocedure which does not apply retroactively
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

on habeas review. Schardt v. Payne, No. 02-36164, slip op. 7963, 7987 (9th Cir. July 8, 2005); to the same

effect, see Green v. U.S., 397 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2005); McReynolds v. U.S., 397 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2005);

In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, defendant was sentenced on June 6, 2003 and, on

June 17, 2003, the Court entered itsjudgment and commitment order. Defendant did not appeal her conviction

and has lost her opportunity to do so. Therefore, regardless of how defendant’s November 23, 2004 filing was

characterized, defendant’s new claim in light of Blakely fails. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s November 23, 2004 motion for relief under § 2255. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JACQUEEN GANDY,

Defendant.

 /

No. CR 03-00025 SI

(Civil No. 04-4982 SI)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S § 2255

MOTION 

On February 23, 2004, defendant Jacqueen Gandy filed a motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, which may be brought to challenge a sentence that is subject to collateral attack. See 28 U.S.C. §

2255. In response to a June 15, 2004 order to show cause, plaintiff acknowledged its inadvertent failure to

respond to defendant’s § 2255 motion and proposed to file an opposition no later than July 9, 2004. Plaintiff

filed its opposition on July 9, 2004. 

Defendant subsequently wrote a letter to the Court seeking an extension for her reply in light ofthe fact

that plaintiff failed to comply with the original briefing schedule in filing its opposition. Defendant’s letter

attached a document entitled “MOTION TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO

BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON.” Defendant’s letter is dated August 19, 2004. Inexplicably, the letter was

not filed with the Court until October 4, 2004. 

On September 14, 2004, in the interim between the date of defendant’s letter and the date of the

letter’s filing, the Court entered an order denying defendant’s February 23, 2004 motion for relief under §

2255. 

Following defendant’s letter filed on October 4, 2004, defendant wrote another letter to the Court.

This second letter, filed November 23, 2004, attached the same motion for supplemental briefing attached to
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1The last line of the attached motion reads as follows: “For all these reasons, the Defendant, Jaqueen

Gandy respectfully request (sic) the court to allow the addendum to her § 2255 in response to Blakely.” 

2Defendant makes references to “Appendic (sic), Jones and Montgomery.” 

2

the first letter. The Court characterized this November 23, 2004 filing as a § 2255 motion, which it now

considers. 

Admittedly, the events leading up to the present motion have been somewhat confusing. Defendant’s

first § 2255 motion was denied without the benefit of a reply brief. It appears defendant intended to include

as a basis for her reply brief the argument laid out in the motion attached to her letters filed on October 4 and

November 23.1 Instead, the Court has characterized the attachment as a new motion for relief under § 2255.

Normally, such a characterization carries adverse effectsfor petitioners giventhe limitations on § 2255 motions

established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). One such limitation is

the one-year period of limitation on the filing of§ 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff argues that,

because defendant’s conviction became final no later than 10 days after July 1, 2003, defendant’s November

23, 2004 motion is time-barred. Yet if this filing is considered a reply briefto the February 23, 2004 motion,

defendant would not be subject to this limitation because the February filing date would be operative.

However, regardless ofwhether the argumentsetforth in the attachment to the letters filed on October 4, 2004

and November 23, 2004 was made as a reply in support ofthe February 23, 2004 motion or as a new § 2255

motion, defendant’s argument fails on the merits.

Defendant’s new claim is that, in light ofBlakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),2 her sentence

was unconstitutional. A new rule of constitutional law does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review

unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001). The Ninth

Circuit has determined that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Cook v. U.S.,

386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 2004) (denying petitioner’s application for authorization to file a successive §

2255 motion);see also Carmona v. U.S., 390 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2004); Simpson v. U.S., 376 F.3d 679 (7th

Cir. 2004); Leonard v. U.S., 383 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2004). In U.S. v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),

the Supreme Court held that the new law applies to cases on directreview. Id. at 769. The Ninth Circuit has

held thatBlakely announced a new constitutionalrule of criminalprocedure which does not apply retroactively
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

on habeas review. Schardt v. Payne, No. 02-36164, slip op. 7963, 7987 (9th Cir. July 8, 2005); to the same

effect, see Green v. U.S., 397 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2005); McReynolds v. U.S., 397 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2005);

In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, defendant was sentenced on June 6, 2003 and, on

June 17, 2003, the Court entered itsjudgment and commitment order. Defendant did not appeal her conviction

and has lost her opportunity to do so. Therefore, regardless of how defendant’s November 23, 2004 filing was

characterized, defendant’s new claim in light of Blakely fails. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s November 23, 2004 motion for relief under § 2255. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge