Memorandum Opinion and Order

A criminal defense attorney seeking to test the limits of the United States Supreme Court’s days-old decision in Blakely v. Washington, 2004 WL 1402697 (June 24, 2004), could not have conjured a more fitting defendant than Ronald Shamblin.  Shamblin, who had previously pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Manufacture Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, was sentenced to 240 months in prison on June 21, 2004.  The calculation of Shamblin’s sentence included so much offense conduct, so much relevant conduct, and so many enhancements that Shamblin’s sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was, literally, off the chart.  The guidelines indicated that Shamblin should receive a sentence of life imprisonment. Because no amount of methamphetamine was charged in his indictment, however, Shamblin’s sentence was limited, by the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of  Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to the maximum sentence under the relevant statute.¹  Now, on the last day that I may review his sentence for clear error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), Shamblin has benefitted again from the Supreme Court’s Apprendi decision, as further explained in Blakely.  Yesterday, the defendant filed a Motion to Correct Unlawful Sentencing Within Seven Days [Docket 69].  For the reasons stated below, I have GRANTED the pending motion [Docket 69], and RESENTENCED Shamblin in accordance with Apprendi and Blakely.