Burley v. United States
Burley v. United States
Opinion
Burley v. United States 04-CV-395-SM 04/05/05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Todd M. Burley, Petitioner,
v. Civil No. 04-cv-395-SM Opinion No.
2005 DNH 055United States of America, Respondent
O R D E R
Petitioner pled guilty to count one of an indictment
charging him with conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced on November 14, 2003, to, inter
alia, 120 months in prison. Petitioner now seeks relief from his
sentence under the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that
he is entitled to be resentenced in light of the Supreme Court's
recent opinion construing the United States Sentencing Guidelines
to be advisory only. United States v. Booker,
125 S.Ct. 738(2005) .
But, the new rule announced in United States v. Booker,
125 S.Ct. 738(2005), is procedural rather than substantive in nature. Moreover, the rule does not qualify as a "watershed
rule" that implicates "the fundamental fairness and accuracy of
the criminal proceedings." Saffle v. Parks,
494 U.S. 484, 495(1990). Accordingly, it does not apply retroactively to final
convictions such as petitioner's. See McReynolds v. United
States,
2005 WL 237642(7th Cir. 2005); Schriro v. Summerlin,
124 S.Ct. 2519, 2523-26(2004); Sepulveda v. United States
330 F.3d 55, 63(1st Cir. 2003). Even if it did, it is unlikely that
petitioner's sentence under a discretionary system would have
been less, he obtained a substantial downward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.
The petition is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe Chief Judge
April 5, 2005
cc: Todd Burley, pro se Mark A. Irish, Esq.
2
Reference
- Status
- Published