Roth v. United States

Seventh Circuit

Roth v. United States

44 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 2002

DocketNo. 02-1447

StatusPublished

This text of 44 F. App'x 2 (Roth v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roth v. United States, 44 F. App'x 2 (7th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

In this collateral attack, based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Gary Roth contends that a failure to allege drug quantity in an indictment is a “jurisdictional” defect. After Roth filed his brief, the Supreme Court rejected that contention. [3]*3See United States v. Cotton, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Moreover, we have held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See Curtis v. United States, 294 F.3d 841 (7th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order

In this collateral attack, based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Gary Roth contends that a failure to allege drug quantity in an indictment is a “jurisdictional” defect. After Roth filed his brief, the Supreme Court rejected that contention. [3]*3See United States v. Cotton, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Moreover, we have held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review. See Curtis v. United States, 294 F.3d 841 (7th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-united-states-ca7-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack