Filed: Nov. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2838 _ Jon David Brooks, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 3, 2005 Filed: November 9, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jon David Brooks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate Brooks's sentence based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washing
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2838 _ Jon David Brooks, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 3, 2005 Filed: November 9, 2005 _ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jon David Brooks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate Brooks's sentence based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washingt..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-2838
___________
Jon David Brooks, *
*
Appellant, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the District
v. * of Minnesota.
*
United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: November 3, 2005
Filed: November 9, 2005
___________
Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jon David Brooks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate Brooks's sentence
based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 296
(2004). The district court* denied relief, but granted a certificate of appealability on
whether the ruling in Blakely--and now United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738
(2005)--applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The rule announced in
Booker does not apply to final criminal judgments on collateral review. See Never
*
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
Misses A Shot v. United States,
413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-