David Sanchez, Jr. v. Marie Vargo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00400-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999548136].. [14-6619]

Appeal: 14-6619

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6619

Doc: 20

Filed: 03/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
David

Sanchez,

Jr.,

appeals

the

district

court’s

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

Johnson,

we

held

“that

the

WL

924049

Miller

(4th

rule

applicable to cases on collateral review.”

is

Cir.
not

2015).

In

retroactively

Id. at *1.

In light

of Miller, we affirm the denial of Sanchez’s § 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

2