David Sanchez, Jr. v. Marie Vargo, 4th Cir. (2015)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 2

Certiorari Granted by Supreme Court, March 7, 2016

Vacated and Remanded by Supreme Court, March 7, 2016

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6619

DAVID JOSEPH SANCHEZ, JR.,


Petitioner Appellant,
v.
MARIE VARGO, Warden, Sussex II State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00400-REP)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 18, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn M. Sweeney, Joshua C. Toll, Sara A. Silverstein,


Samuel E. Doran, Stephen D. Saltarelli, KING & SPALDING LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney
General, Victoria Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
David

Sanchez,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

courts

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.

order

Sanchez

was convicted in 1999 of capital murder and related offenses and


is serving a sentence of life plus eighteen years without the
possibility of parole.
whether

Sanchez

Miller v.
Supreme

is

Alabama,
Court

The sole issue raised in this appeal is


entitled

132

held

S.

that

to

retroactive

Ct.

2455

(2012).

the

Eighth

application
In

Amendment

Miller,
prohibits

of
the
a

mandatory sentence of life without parole for an offender who


was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense.
at 2461.

Id.

Sanchez was seventeen when he committed the relevant

crimes.
This case is governed by our recent decision in Johnson v.
Ponton,

___

F.3d

___,

2015

WL

924049

(4th

Cir.

2015).

In

Johnson, we held that the Miller rule is not retroactively


applicable to cases on collateral review.

Id. at *1.

In light

of Miller, we affirm the denial of Sanchezs 2254 petition.


We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like