Case Name: John R. DOWARD v. UNITED STATES of America
Court: United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-04
Citations: 142 F. Supp. 2d 169
Docket Number: No. Civ. 01-52-B
Parties: John R. DOWARD v. UNITED STATES of America
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 142
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
John R. DOWARD v. UNITED STATES of America
No. Civ. 01-52-B.
United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.
April 4, 2001.
John R. Doward, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Peter E. Papps, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Concord, NH, for U.S.

Opinion:
ORDER
BARBADORO, Chief Judge.
John Doward seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the court improperly enhanced his statutory maximum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). His claims depend upon the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
I assume without deciding that: (1) Do-ward's claims are not barred by the statute of limitations that governs § 2255 motions because he filed his motion within one year of "the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court . and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review," 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) Doward can establish "cause and prejudice" that excuses his failure to raise his claims on direct appeal. See Sustache-Rivera v. United States, 221 F.3d 8, 17-18 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1364, 149 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). Nevertheless, I reject Doward's claims because they are defective on their merits.
The Supreme Court held in Apprendi that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63 (emphasis added). The Court did not overrule its prior decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that, where provided by statute, a judge may enhance a defendant's sentence based upon prior convictions which have not been presented to a jury and proved to the jury's satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 239-48, 118 S.Ct. 1219; see also Apprendi, 120 S.Ct. at 2362 (declining to revisit the validity of Almendarez-Torres). Therefore, as both the Tenth and the Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal have recognized, an enhancement of a statutory maximum sentence based on 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) that results from prior convictions is governed by Almendarez-Torres rather than Apprendi. See United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1034-35 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 587-88 (10th Cir.2000).
I enhanced Doward's sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) based upon several prior convictions. Under prevailing Supreme Court precedent, the applicability of this enhancement is a matter for the judge rather than the jury. Petition dismissed.
SO ORDERED.