Castillo v. Pratt ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-10284
    Summary Calendar
    YSIDRO CASTILLO, JR.,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    SAM L. PRATT, Warden;
    KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Director;
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    (3:01-CV-1226-R)
    --------------------
    September 6, 2002
    Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Petitioner-Appellant Ysidro Castillo, Jr., federal prisoner #
    24866-077, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.   He
    contends that (1) the district court violated Apprendi v. New
    Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000) by sentencing him on the basis of the
    quantity of dugs stated in the presentence report, because the jury
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
    the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    did   not    determine   the   drug       amount,   and   (2)      Apprendi          is
    retroactively applicable to his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
    We have not yet decided whether Apprendi applies retroactively
    on collateral review, see United States v. Clark, 
    260 F.3d 382
    (5th
    Cir. 2001).    Even so, Castillo’s Apprendi claim lacks merit. True,
    after Apprendi, the jury should have been charged to find the drug
    amount.     See United States v. Miranda, 
    248 F.3d 434
    , 445 (5th Cir.
    2001), cert. denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 410
    (2001), and 
    122 S. Ct. 823
    (2002).     Nevertheless, Castillo has failed to show that the error,
    although plain, seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings.
    See United States v. Cotton, 
    122 S. Ct. 1781
    , 1785-86 (2002).
    Therefore, regardless whether Apprendi applies retroactively to
    cases on collateral review, Castillo cannot show that the district
    court’s failure to instruct the jury on drug quantity entitles him
    to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief.           Accordingly, the district court’s
    judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-10284.0.wpd
    4/29/04 8:38 am
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-10284

Filed Date: 9/9/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014