Opinion ID: 200171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Berthoff's Apprendi Claim

Text: Berthoff contends that his sentence violates Apprendi because the jury did not make findings as to the triggering quantities that would support the 21-year drug trafficking 4 Berthoff contends that the 700% sentencing disparity alone -- absent fact bargaining or improper downward departures -- violates his Sixth Amendment rights. As set forth supra, this argument is barred by the procedural default doctrine. -10- sentence. Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), the jury would have had to find that he was responsible for at least one hundred kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana. The district court declined to allow Berthoff to amend his habeas petition to include the Apprendi claim, although it later included it in the COA. We generally review a decision granting or denying a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Watson v. Deaconess Waltham Hosp., 298 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir. 2002). Berthoff does not argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to amend. In any event, we will not consider the Apprendi claim because the district court correctly held that it lacked the authority to allow the amendment after it had entered judgment on Berthoff's § 2255 petition. A habeas petitioner may not add new constitutional claims to a petition after the district court has entered judgment. Ward v. Whitley, 21 F.3d 1355, 1360 (5th Cir. 1994). Berthoff did not seek relief from the district court's judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or any other rule. See Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 389 (1st Cir. 1994) (Unless post-judgment relief is granted [under Rule 59 or 60], the district court lacks power to grant a motion to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a).). Affirmed. -11-