U.S. v. Barber

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Rademacher

    CRIMINAL NO. 06-30005-2 (W.D. La. May. 13, 2008)

    Courts outside this circuit have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the retroactive applicability of Lopez. Compare Storeby v. United States, No. 02-65-T-24TBM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39494, at *6 (M.D.Fl. May 31, 2007) (" Lopez is not retroactively applicable on collateral review."); United States v. Carroll, Nos. 5:03-CR-42, 5:06-CV-238, 2007 WL 1299334 (N.D.Fla. Apr. 30, 2007) (same); United States v. Gooden, No. 07-580, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88965, at *4-5 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 3, 2007) (same); Ibarra-Martinez v. United States, No. 8:93-CR-3-T-24EAJ, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92151 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 14, 2007) (same); United States v. Barber, Civil No. 07-5103, 2007 WL 3101852, at *3 (W.D.Ark. Oct. 22, 2007) (same); with De Dios Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Weber, 472 F.3d 1198, 1201 (10th Cir. 2006) ("cases interpreting statutes are 'fully retroactive because they do not change the law, but rather explain what the law has always meant.'"); United States v. Keyes, Civil Case No. 07-CV-00867-LTB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83382, at *7-8 (D.Colo. Nov. 9, 2007) ("Lopez announced a substantive new rule of law that should be applied retroactively"); see also Butler v. Menifee, No. 07-1706, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12988, at *6-7 (W.D.La. Jan. 4, 2008). Rademacher's sentence was enhanced pursuant to ยง 841(b)(1)(A) based on his 2003 Texas conviction.

  2. U.S. v. Keyes

    558 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Colo. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding that " Lopez announced a substantive new rule of law that should be applied retroactively to this collateral proceeding" but ultimately finding it limited to the immigration context

    Accordingly, I conclude Lopez announced a substantive new rule of law that should be applied retroactively to this collateral proceeding. But see United States v. Carroll, Nos. 5:03cr42/MCR, 5:06cv238/MCR/MD, 2007 WL 1299334, at *10 (N.D. Fla. April 30, 2007) (holding, without explanation, " Lopez is clearly procedural under this standard, and thus it cannot be applied retroactively unless it is a watershed rule of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding"); United States v. Barber, Civil No. 07-5103, Criminal No. 01-50019, 2007 WL 3101852, at *3 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 22, 2007) (same rule without explanation); Storeby v. United States, Nos. 8:02-cr-65-T-24TBM, 8:07-cv-882-T-24TBM, 2007 WL 1577804, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2007) (same rule without explanation). III. LOPEZ V. GONZALES