United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 21, 2005.
JAMES OREYE, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
On August 17, 2004 this Court issued a memorandum order that
(1) denied the motion by James Oreye ("Oreye") seeking
reconsideration of its earlier summary dismissal of his
years-late 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion, by which he
sought to attack his federal sentence, and (2) elaborated on the
reason that Oreye's Section 2255 motion was time-barred. Next
this Court's September 28, 2004 memorandum order (1) addressed
Oreye's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from the
rejection of his Section 2255 motion and (2) explained why no
certificate of appealability should issue. After our Court of
Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability, it might have
been thought that Oreye's belated attack had come to an end.
Now the indefatigable Oreye has filed what he labels his "Brief
in Support of Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Motion
To Vacate Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255, Dated July 24, 2004." This time Oreye wishes this Court to
give retroactive effect to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). But no court
has even hinted at the appropriateness of such a ruling, which
would open up many, many thousands of sentences imposed over a
period of many years in that respect, Oreye simply
misunderstands the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v.
Ameline, No. 02-30326, 2005 WL 1291977 (9th Cir. June 1,
2005), which dealt (like numerous cases around the country such
as our Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. Paladino,
401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005)) with the applicability of
Booker to cases on direct appeal.
Oreye's most recent attack on the sentence he is serving
remains untimely. Hence his current motion to vacate or set aside
or correct that sentence is also denied.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.