Opinion
Criminal No. 4-96-150 (1) (JRT/AJB).
April 19, 2005
Arthur Schuyler Ross, c/o Mr. Gordon R. Ross, 3810 Ivanhoe Court, Schiller Park, IL 61076, pro se.
John R. Marti, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 600 United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS
Arthur Schuyler Ross ("Ross") was convicted by a jury of wire fraud and money laundering and was sentenced to 87 months in prison. After an appeal to the Eighth Circuit, the case was remanded for resentencing. The Court issued a new sentence of 121 months in prison. Ross subsequently filed a direct appeal and a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, both of which were denied. Ross then sought a certificate of appealability that was also denied by this Court and the Eighth Circuit. Ross then filed a motion for rehearing en banc with the Eighth Circuit and a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which were also denied. This matter is now before the Court on Ross' Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis seeking resentencing in light of Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Ross' petition.
To the extent Ross argues that his resentencing was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), this argument is entirely without merit. Apprendi "requires that any fact other than a prior conviction `that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Ray, 291 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490) (emphasis added). Ross was not sentenced beyond the 240-month statutory maximum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
Ross filed a Motion to Amend and Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on March 11, 2005. The Court considered the contents of the motion and finds that the arguments therein do not affect the outcome of this matter.
In United States v. Booker, the United States Supreme Court determined that Blakely applies to the federal Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). This Court has determined that the rule announced in Blakely and Booker does not apply retroactively to matters on collateral review. See Rodriguez v. United States, Crim. No. 00-276 (JRT) (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2005). Accordingly, Ross' motion for relief cannot be granted on the basis of Blakely and Booker.
The Court also recognizes that the relief Ross seeks may not be available via a Writ of Coram Nobis.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all of the records, files and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis [Docket No. 499] is DENIED.
2. Petitioner's Motion to Amend and Supplement Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis [Docket No. 508] is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the petitioner.