Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

OREYE v. U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


June 21, 2005.

JAMES OREYE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

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.

20050621

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.