Narrative Opinion Summary
In a collateral attack referencing Apprendi v. New Jersey, Gary Roth argues that the indictment's failure to specify drug quantity constitutes a “jurisdictional” defect. However, following Roth's brief submission, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument in United States v. Cotton. Additionally, it has been established that Apprendi does not have retroactive application in collateral review, as confirmed in Curtis v. United States. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of District Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's judgment was upheld in light of the established legal principles.
Reasoning: Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Collateral Attack and Jurisdictional Defectssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant argued that an indictment's failure to specify drug quantity is a jurisdictional defect, but this argument was invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision.
Reasoning: Gary Roth argues that the indictment's failure to specify drug quantity constitutes a 'jurisdictional' defect. However, following Roth's brief submission, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument in United States v. Cotton.
Retroactive Application of Apprendi v. New Jerseysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that the decision in Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Reasoning: Additionally, it has been established that Apprendi does not have retroactive application in collateral review, as confirmed in Curtis v. United States.