2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 7-10-2006 

# U SA v . P ra y P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4372

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . P r a y " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 766. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/766NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4372

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

vs. W A Y N E P R A Y , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 88- cr - 00175- 01) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y5, 2006 Be f o r e : FI SHER, ALD I SERT AN D W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES (F il ed : July1 0 , 2 0 0 6 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM

W ayne Pr ayw as convi ct ed bya j uryof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne and re late d c rim e s a n d se n ten c e d in Ja n u a ry1 9 9 0 to life im p riso n m e n t. W e a f f irm e d h is convi ct i on i n 1992. C . A . N o. 90- 5054 ( A ugus t31, 1992) . A ft eruns ucce s s ful l ys eeki ng r el i ef unde rol d R ul e 35, i n 1997 Pr ayfi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the deni al of a mot i on 1 u n d e r R u le 3 5 is p le n a ry. U n ite d S ta te s v . W o o d s , 9 8 6 F .2 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 2 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n an d w e d en ied h is r eq u est fo r a cert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C . A . N o. 98- 5032) . W e have s i nce de ni ed hi s appl i cat i on for a u th o r i z a t i o n t o f

i l e a s e c o n d s e c t i o n 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n ( C . A . N o . 0 1 - 2 6 4 4 ) a n d , m o s tr e c e n t l y, hi s m ot i on t o r eca l l the mandat e i n 98- 5032.

U ndet err ed, Pr ayfi l ed anotherR ul e 35 mot i on chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on a n d se n ten c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n b e c a u se it d e c lin e d to d e e m o ld R u le 35 appl i cabl e t o Pr ayand bec aus e unders ubs equentver s i ons of R ul e 35 onl ythe g o v e rn m e n t m a ym o v e f o r r e d u c tio n in s e n te n c e . W e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e c o u rt th e re b ye rre d b e c a u se e v e n if o ld R ul e 35 appl i es i n thi s cont ext , Pr ay ’ s cl ai m s fai l . I n hi s m ot i on, Pr aym akes thr ee 1 cl ai m s ( tw o of w hi ch w er e the s ubj ectof hi s appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd s ect i on 2255 m ot i on) . Fi r s t , he mai nt ai ns thathi s s ent ence i s uncons t i tut i onal pur s uantt o A ppr endi v. N e w J e r s e y, 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T o d e t e r m i n e w h e th e rA p p r e n d i a p p l i e s r e tr o a c t i v e l y, w e foll ow ou r j uri spruden ce un der 28 U . S . C . §§ 22 54 & 22 55 . U nit ed S t at es v. W oo ds, 986 F. 2d 669, 676- 678 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A s w e have hel d thatA ppr endi i s notr etr oact i ve t o c a s e s o n c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w, Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S wi n t o n , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 8 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , we c o n c lu d e th a t P ra yis b a rr e d f ro m p re s e n tin g a n A p p re n d i c la im v ia R u le 3 5 . I n hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s Pr ayal l eges thathi s convi ct i ons underboth 21A lth o u g h P ra ysty les th e se c laim s in ter m s o f c h a llen g e s to h is s e n ten c e , itis p lain 2 thathi s chal l enges ar e r eal l yt o the convi ct i ons themsel ves . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ani no, 2 1 2 F . 3 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 4 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). U .S .C . § 8 4 6 a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 3 v io late th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC lau se p u rsu a n t to R ut l edge v. U ni t ed St at es , 517 U . S. 292 ( 1996) , and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed w hen in stru c tin g th e ju ryo n th e re q u ire m e n ts f o r c o n v ictio n u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 8 . B o th cl ai m s chal l enge hi s convi ct i ons r atherthan hi s s ent ence and, as s uch, theyar e not 2 p rop erlythe s u b

ject of a ru le 35 m o ti o n : “as the R u le’s l an g u ag e a n d h ist o rym ak e c lear, th e n a rro w f

u n c tio n o f

R u le 3 5 is to p e rm it co rre c tio n . . . o f a n ill e g a l se n ten c e , n o t to r e- exami ne err or s occurr i ng atthe tr i al orotherpr ocee di ngs pr i ort o the i m pos i t i on of s ent ence . ” H i l l v. U ni t ed St at es , 368 U . S. 424, 430 ( 1962) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 839 F. 2d 175, 182 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C ani no, 212 F. 3d 383 ( 7th C i r . 2000) (a p p lyin g th is p ri n c ip le to a R u tle d g e c la im ).

A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.