Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00457-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Ray Bailey
Petitioner
Bernie Ellis
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD RAY BAILEY,

Petitioner,

v.

BERNIE ELLIS, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0457 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. 8]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action issued Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

federal claim. On October 24, 2006, the undersigned adopted the Findings and

Recommendations in full and dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus and

judgment was entered. (Court Docs. 6, 7.) Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration, filed November 9, 2006. (Court Doc. 8.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on grounds of: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an

adverse party, . . .; (4) the judgment if void; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Case 1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

In his motion, Petitioner contends that in United States v. Buckland, 277 F.3d 1173 (9th

Cir. 2002), superseded and amended 289 F.3d 558 (9 Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit articulated

th

the substantive elements which the government must prove in order to convict a defendant under

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B). Petitioner contends this change in the law must be applied

retroactively to him. Petitioner is simply mistaken. 

As Petitioner conceded in his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this action,

at the time of Petitioner’s conviction, Apprendi v. v. New Jersey, 506 U.S. 466 (2000) had not

yet been decided. As stated in the October 24, 2006, order, Petitioner is attempting to disguise

his Apprendi claim by citing Buckland which involved the application of Apprendi to 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), on direct review. (Court Doc. 6, at 2.) Although Apprendi was applied

to § 841 in Buckland, the same statute at issue in the instant petition, as previously stated, the

benefit of the rule announced in Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases, such as this, on

collateral review. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 537 th

U.S. 939 (2002); see also Reynolds v. Cambra, 290 F.3d 1029, 1030 (9 Cir. 2002). th

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00457-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2