U.S. v. Hammond

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NAVARRO HAMMOND, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Apr 26, 2005

Crim. No. 92-00471 (HHK), Civil No. 01-01422 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2005)

Opinion

Crim. No. 92-00471 (HHK), Civil No. 01-01422.

April 26, 2005

ORDER

HENRY KENNEDY, District Judge

This matter comes before the court upon the motion of defendant Navarro Hammond to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence and Conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.¹ Hammond asserts that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), require this court to set aside his sentence.

1 This includes both Hammond's original Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Conviction, filed on June 21, 2001, and his subsequent Supplemental Authority, filed on November 26, 2004.

Upon consideration of Hammond's motion and the government's opposition thereto, the court agrees with the government that the rulings of the Supreme Court in Apprendi and Blakely are of no avail to Hammond because the holdings in these cases are not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. In Re Hinton, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4090, 2005 WL 566608 (D.C. Cir. March 10, 2005) (holding that Blakely is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review); Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55, 63 (1^st Cir. 2003) (holding that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review); Coleman v. United States, 329 F.3d 77, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1061, 124 S.Ct. 840, 157 L.Ed.2d 719 (2003) ("Apprendi does not apply retroactively to initial section 2255 motions for habeas relief"); Goode v. United States, 305 F.3d 378, 382 (6^th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1096, 123 S.Ct 711, 154 L.Ed.2d 647 (2002) (" Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to initial § 2255 motions"); Curtis v. United States, 294 F.3d 841, 844 (7^th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 976, 123 S.Ct. 451, 154 L.Ed.2d 334 (2002) (same); United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10^th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 961, 123 S.Ct. 388, 154 L.Ed.2d 315 (2002) ("Apprendi is not a watershed decision and hence is not retroactively applicable to initial habeas petitions"); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 671 (9^th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 939, 123 S.Ct. 48, 154 L.Ed.2d 243 (2002) ("Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review"); McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d 1245, 1258 (11^th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 906, 122 S.Ct. 2362, 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002) ("Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review"); United States v. Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 1001 (8^th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1097, 122 S.Ct. 848, 151 L.Ed.2d 725 (2002) (holding that Apprendi did not announce a watershed rule of criminal procedure); United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4^th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1032, 122 S.Ct. 573, 151 L.Ed.2d 445 (2001) (same); United States v. Walls, 215 F.Supp.2d 159, 163 (D.D.C. 2002) ("Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to an initial § 2255 motion. . . .").

Hammond's motion, therefore, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.