Gorko v. United States

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-19-2005
Gorko v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2660
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Gorko v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 671.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/671
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HPS-127 (July 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2660
________________
DR. JOSEPH A. GORKO, JR.,
Appellant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
RONNIE HOLT, Warden
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00956)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 29, 2005
Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed August 19, 2005)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Dr. Joseph A. Gorko, Jr. was convicted in United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania of multiple counts of mailing threatening
communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. He was sentenced to a total term of
1
imprisonment of 97 months, to be followed by three years of supervised release. His
direct appeal of the conviction and sentence is currently pending in this Court at United
States v. Gorko, C.A. Nos. 03-1597 & 04-4142.
Although his direct appeal remains pending, Gorko filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus in the Middle District, although not before the sentencing court. Gorko
sought immediate release, contending that his sentence was based on several
enhancements, and the enhancements were the result of judicial fact-finding. The petition
was grounded on the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington,
124 S. Ct. 2531 (U.S. 2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (U.S. 2005).
Blakely held that the State of Washington’s determinate sentencing scheme violated the
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial insofar as a judge may find facts, and then enhance
a sentence, upon the less stringent preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. at 2538.
Booker, which applied the Blakely rule to the federal sentencing guidelines, held that,
because the guidelines allowed judges to find facts that lead to a greater sentence than
that authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict, they were not
mandatory. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756.
The District Court dismissed the habeas petition on the basis that Gorko’s
direct appeal is pending, a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the
exclusive means for mounting a collateral challenge to a conviction and sentence, and
Booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Gorko appeals. The
2
parties were notified that we might act summarily to affirm the District Court’s order, and
invited to, and did, submit responses.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying Gorko’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because
it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. The habeas
petition cannot proceed for the reasons given by the District Court. A motion to vacate
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive means to challenge collaterally a federal
conviction or sentence, see Application of Galante, 473 F.2d 1164, 1165 (3d Cir. 1971),
and we recently held in Lloyd v. United States, 407 F.3d 608 (3d Cir. 2005), that the rule
announced in Booker is a new rule of constitutional procedure that is not retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review. Gorko may pursue his Booker arguments on
direct appeal to the extent permissible. See United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir.
2005), and United States v. Hill, — F.3d — , 2005 WL 1389113 (3d Cir. June 14, 2005).
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court dismissing the
habeas corpus petition.