Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01006/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01006-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Harper
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

Document Text:

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 OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

DAVID HARPER,

Defendant and Petitioner.

 /

No. CR-89-0097 SI

(Civil No. C 05-1006 SI)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET

ASIDE, VACATE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255;

AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion to set aside, vacate or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner argues that his sentence was unconstitutionalbecause he received an enhancement

for playing a “Leadership Role” in the criminal offense that violates his Sixth Amendment right as provided in

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and its progeny.

 However, petitioner has been in custody since 1989 and has previously exhausted his direct appeal.

See Mot. at 1. Petitioner asks this Court to conduct a collateral review of his Blakely claim. However,

Blakely announced a new constitutional rule of criminalprocedure that does not apply retroactively on habeas

or collateralreview. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); see Bey v. United States, 399

F.3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2005); Green v. United States, 397 F.3d 101, 103 (2nd Cir. 2005); In re

Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005); McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir.

2005).

Therefore, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The briefing schedule set out in this Court’s Order filed

August 23, 2005 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 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 OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

DAVID HARPER,

Defendant and Petitioner.

 /

No. CR-89-0097 SI

(Civil No. C 05-1006 SI)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET

ASIDE, VACATE OR CORRECT

SENTENCE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255;

AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion to set aside, vacate or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner argues that his sentence was unconstitutionalbecause he received an enhancement

for playing a “Leadership Role” in the criminal offense that violates his Sixth Amendment right as provided in

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and its progeny.

 However, petitioner has been in custody since 1989 and has previously exhausted his direct appeal.

See Mot. at 1. Petitioner asks this Court to conduct a collateral review of his Blakely claim. However,

Blakely announced a new constitutional rule of criminalprocedure that does not apply retroactively on habeas

or collateralreview. Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir. 2005); see Bey v. United States, 399

F.3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2005); Green v. United States, 397 F.3d 101, 103 (2nd Cir. 2005); In re

Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005); McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir.

2005).

Therefore, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The briefing schedule set out in this Court’s Order filed

August 23, 2005 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2005

_________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge