Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
05-5528•Darius Troy Gordon v. United States of America
05-5528United States Court Of Appeals For The 6th Circuit18.06.2007
1
NOT FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0408n.06
Filed: June 19, 2007
No. 05-5528
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DARIUS TROY GORDON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Darius Troy Gordon pled guilty in 2001 to one count of
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Judgment was entered in October 2001,
and no direct appeal was filed. In February 2005, Gordon filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255. The district court dismissed the motion as time-barred and denied a certificate of
appealability. Gordon appealed the dismissal of his motion, and this court granted a certificate of
appealability on the following issues: (1) whether Gordon’s motion was timely filed; (2) whether
Gordon’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (3) whether Gordon’s sentence was
unconstitutional.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we conclude that a panel opinion
further addressing the issues raised would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We further note that this
court has confirmed that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not apply retroactively
in collateral proceedings. Humphress v. United States, 398 F.3d 855, 860 (6th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, on the grounds identified by the district court, we affirm the district court’s denial of
petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.