Bromley v. United States
This text of 2005 DNH 056 (Bromley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Bromley v . United States 05-CV-103-SM 04/05/05 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Steven L . Bromley, Petitioner,
v. Civil N o . 05-cv-103-SM Opinion N o . 2005 DNH 056 United States of America, Respondent
O R D E R
Petitioner pled guilty to one count of making a false
statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Sentence was imposed
on December 1 6 , 2003, in accordance with the provisions of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines. Petitioner did not object
to the constitutionality of the guidelines’ mandatory character
at sentencing, but did so on direct appeal. The United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed petitioner’s
conviction and sentence on October 2 2 , 2004, noting that Blakely
v . Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) did not, strictly speaking,
invalidate the federal guidelines, and no plain error could be
ascribed to a sentence consistent with then controlling
precedent. Now that the Supreme Court has construed the federal
guidelines to be advisory rather than mandatory, in United States
v . Booker, 15 S.Ct. 738 (2005), petitioner once again seeks to
challenge his guideline sentence. 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. 4 8 4 , 495 (1990). Accordingly, Booker does not
apply retroactively to final convictions, like 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 5 5 , 63 (1st Cir. 2003).
The petition is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe Chief Judge
April 5 , 2005
cc: Steven L . Bromley, pro se
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2005 DNH 056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromley-v-united-states-nhd-2005.