United States v. Duran

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Duran

147 F. App'x 625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 2005

DocketNo. 05-2395

StatusPublished

This text of 147 F. App'x 625 (United States v. Duran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Duran, 147 F. App'x 625 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mariano Duran appeals the district court’s¹ judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, wherein Duran sought relief based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether the rule an[626]*626nounced in Blakely applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, and the Supreme Court thereafter issued its decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because neither decision applies retroactively to final convictions, see Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam), we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Duran’s pro se motion for new counsel is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mariano Duran appeals the district court’s¹ judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, wherein Duran sought relief based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The district court granted a certificate of appealability on whether the rule an[626]*626nounced in Blakely applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, and the Supreme Court thereafter issued its decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because neither decision applies retroactively to final convictions, see Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam), we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Duran’s pro se motion for new counsel is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. App'x 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-duran-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack