Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Alexander, 10th Cir. (2005)
United States v. Alexander, 10th Cir. (2005)
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 05-3063
v.
District of Kansas
RONALD D. ALEXANDER,
Defendant-Appellant,
ORDER
Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Order of March 9, 2005. On April 27, 2005, Mr. Alexander filed an application
for a COA in the Tenth Circuit. He argues that the trial court violated his Sixth
Amendment rights under Blakely and Booker by enhancing his sentence based on
facts not admitted by him or found by a jury, and he maintains that Blakely and
Booker announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to
cases on collateral review. App. for COA 2. This argument is directly foreclosed
by United States v. Bellamy, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 1406176 (10th Cir. Jun. 16,
2005), in which we held that Booker does not apply retroactively to convictions
that were final at the time it was decided. See also United States v. Price, 400
F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively);
Leonard v. United States, 383 F.3d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004) (denying a motion
for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition because the
Supreme Court had not held that Blakely applied retroactively to cases on
collateral review). The Supreme Court decided Booker on January 12, 2005. Mr.
Alexanders conviction and sentence became final in 2002. See United States v.
Alexander, 292 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2002). Because his sentence was final long
before Booker was decided, Mr. Alexander is not entitled to resentencing, and no
reasonable jurist would debate whether his 2255 petition should have been
granted.
The request for a COA is therefore DENIED, and the petition is
-3-
DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-