# United States v. Clark

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 26, 2001 · 260 F.3d 382

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414091

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 26, 2001
- **Citations:** 260 F.3d 382; 2001 WL 845193
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Garza
- **Judges:** Garza, Parker, Ellison
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414091

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the rule announced in Apprendi is both procedural and substantive in nature and should therefore be applied retroactively
- concluding that “Apprendi announces a new substantive rule” and must therefore be applied retroactively
- declining to express an opinion on the issue of Apprendi’s retroactive application and remanding the case to the district court for analysis of this issue

## Opinion text

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
In light of the impact that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) has wrought in sentencing above maximum statutory limits, we REMAND to the district court to reconsider its ruling denying Patrick Clark an amendment to his § 2255 motion based on futility in light of Apprendi . 1
. By remanding this case, we express no opinion on how the district court should resolve that issue. In reconsidering whether Clark's amendment is futile the district court may need to determine whether Apprendi announces a substantive change in the law requiring retroactivity under Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 , 94 S.Ct. 2298 , 41 L.Ed.2d 109 (1974) (allowing a defendant to assert in a § 2255 proceeding, a claim based on an intervening substantive change in the interpretation of a federal criminal statute) or a change in procedure requiring application of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (under Teague the district court must determine the date on which the conviction became final, whether a *383 new rule was announced, which is procedural and not substantive, and, pending that determination, whether any exceptions apply). Because of the difficulty and importance of the retroactivity issue, the district court should consider whether to appoint counsel for Clark.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414091. Public record. Not legal advice.