Case ID: f-appx_191/html/0262-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-31214.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 14, 2006.
    James B. Letten, Acting U.S. Attorney, Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bobby Johnson, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby Johnson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, wherein he challenges his conviction of extortion, conspiring to commit extortion, mail and wire fraud, and making a false statement. Johnson seeks to amend his § 2255 motion to raise a constitutional issue under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The district court denied leave to amend but granted Johnson a certificate of appealability on the issue whether he should be permitted to raise a claim under Blakely.

Johnson argues that the court abused its discretion by denying him leave to amend. He asserts that the court committed error under Blakely and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by applying mandatory sentencing guidelines to enhance his sentence based on facts neither admitted nor found by a jury and that Booker applies retroactively to his case. Johnson’s arguments concerning Blakely and Booker are foreclosed. See United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2948, — L.Ed.2d-(2006) (No. 05-1504); United States v. Gentry, 432 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir.2005). The court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.