Holly Landry v. Phyllis Baskerville

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00367-MHL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999940675]. [14-6631]

Appeal: 14-6631

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6631

HOLLY MICHELLE LANDRY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PHYLLIS A. BASKERVILLE, Warden, Fluvanna Correctional Center
for Women,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:13-cv-00367-MHL)

Submitted:

September 27, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Spinelli, Sonya L. Lebsack, Beth C. Neitzel, WILMER
CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia,
Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6631

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Holly Michelle Landry appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, in which
Landry

claimed

that

her

sentence

of

mandatory

life

without

parole violated Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).

The

district court concluded that Miller did not apply retroactively
to cases on collateral review for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244
(d)(1)(C) (2012).
granted

a

The court denied Landry’s § 2254 petition and

certificate

of

appealability.

Subsequent

to

the

district court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that “Miller
announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive to cases on
collateral review.”
732 (2016).

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718,

Because the district court did not have the benefit

of Montgomery, we vacate the judgment and remand for further
proceedings.
petition.
legal
before

We express no opinion as to the merits of Landry’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

2