Case ID: f-appx_191/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Edward MULL, also known as John Eddie Mull, also known as Eddie Mull, also known as John Edward Maul, Appellant.
    No. 05-3172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 7, 2006.
    Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Appellee.
    John Edward Mull, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Robert B. Creager, Anderson & Creager, Lincoln, NE, for Appellant.
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

With a certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court, John Edward Mull challenges the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm.

We conclude that Mull’s sentence is unaffected by United States v. R.L.C., 503 U.S. 291, 112 S.Ct. 1329, 117 L.Ed.2d 559 (1992). The case that could affect his sentence is United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), but it does not apply retroactively to Mull, whose conviction became final before Booker was decided. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We further conclude that a citation error in the district court’s order denying Mull’s section 2255 motion, which the court corrected when the error was brought to its attention, is not an independent basis for relief. These are the only issues that are within the scope of the COA. See United States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir.2002) (issues beyond scope of COA are not properly before this court).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the motion to expand the record and the application to enlarge the COA. 
      
      . The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.