Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barrios, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on Sergio Barrios' motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Barrios' case on collateral review. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered both Barrios' § 2255 motion and the government's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence in the same proceeding. The Fourth Circuit also found that supplemental claims raised in Barrios' pro se brief did not entitle him to relief. The district court's decision was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6380

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on Sergio Barrios' motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Barrios' case on collateral review. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered both Barrios' § 2255 motion and the government's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence in the same proceeding. The Fourth Circuit also found that supplemental claims raised in Barrios' pro se brief did not entitle him to relief. The district court's decision was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Barrios, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on Sergio Barrios' motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey did not apply retroactively to Barrios' case on collateral review. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered both Barrios' § 2255 motion and the government's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence in the same proceeding. The Fourth Circuit also found that supplemental claims raised in Barrios' pro se brief did not entitle him to relief. The district court's decision was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6380

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    SERGIO BARRIOS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CR-97-249-A)

    Submitted:

    September 18, 2001

    Decided:

    October 16, 2001

    Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    E. Blair Brown, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E.
    Melson, United States Attorney, James L. Trump, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Sergio Barrios appeals the district courts order ruling on
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001).
    Barrios contends that the district court erred in considering in
    the same proceeding both Barrios motion to vacate under 2255 and
    the Governments motion for reduction of sentence under Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 35.

    Barrios asserts that he would have ended up with a

    lower sentence if the district court had first considered his


    2255 claims that he was entitled to relief under Apprendi v. New
    Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and then reduced his sentence in a
    separate proceeding under Rule 35.
    We have recently held that the Apprendi ruling is not applicable retroactively to cases on collateral review.
    v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2000).
    is entitled to no relief under Apprendi.

    United States

    Therefore, Barrios

    In addition, we conclude

    that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to
    depart downward to the extent it did.
    Barrios has filed a pro se, supplemental brief. Our review of
    these claims convinces us that the issues raised therein entitle
    him to no relief.

    We affirm the decision of the district court.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
    and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like