04-74553 | 9th Cir. | Oct 22, 2004
386 F.3d 949" court="9th Cir." date_filed="2004-10-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/markus-loren-cook-v-united-states-788111?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="788111">386 F.3d 949
Markus Loren COOK, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
No. 04-74553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 14, 2004*.
Filed October 22, 2004.
Markus Loren Cook, Florence, CO, petitioner, pro se.
United States of America, no appearance.
On Application for Authorization to File a Second or Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed an application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court. Petitioner contends that his sentence is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2004-06-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blakely-v-washington-136995?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="136995">124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).
In our decision in Rees v. Hill, 286 F.3d 1103" court="9th Cir." date_filed="2002-03-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ronald-richard-rees-v-jean-hill-superintendent-hardy-myers-777288?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="777288">286 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.2002), we determined that, because the Supreme Court had not mandated that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2000-06-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/apprendi-v-new-jersey-118381?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="118381">530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), be applied retroactively on collateral review, Rees could not meet the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for obtaining leave to file a second petition for habeas relief based on an alleged violation of Apprendi. Rees at 1104; see also United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664" court="9th Cir." date_filed="2002-03-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-juan-sanchez-cervantes-aka-hugo-quirox-quiroc-quiroz-quiroz-trejo-and-quiroz-tapia-776806?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="776806">282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002).
Similarly, the Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review. Petitioner's application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court is therefore denied. See also In re Dean, 375 F.3d 1287" court="11th Cir." date_filed="2004-07-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-will-c-dean-jr-76680?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="76680">375 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.2004); Simpson v. United States 376 F.3d 679" court="7th Cir." date_filed="2004-07-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/william-s-simpson-applicant-v-united-states-787036?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="787036">376 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2004).
No petition for rehearing or motion for reconsideration shall be filed or entertained in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).
APPLICATION DENIED.
Notes:
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argumentSee Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).