Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01236/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold D. Ray
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1236

___________

Harold D. Ray, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2005 

Filed: August 10, 2005 

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harold Ray appeals the district court’s1

 judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. We granted a certificate of appealability related to a sentencing enhancement

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2)(A) for use of a chartered airplane, and we now affirm.

A jury found Ray guilty of two marijuana offenses, as well as attempted

witness tampering. In May 2000 the district court sentenced him to 97 months on

each count, to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, we affirmed Ray’s

Appellate Case: 04-1236 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938573
-2-

convictions, but remanded for resentencing on the drug counts in light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. Ray, 250 F.3d 596, 599

(8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 980 (2002). Following an August 2001

hearing, the district court resentenced Ray to 60 months on each of the drug counts,

to be served concurrently with each other and with the previously imposed 97 months

for attempted witness tampering, and we affirmed. See United States v. Ray, 291

F.3d 1039, 1040-41 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1036 (2002). This section 2255

motion followed.

Ray now argues that his conduct did not fall within the meaning of "import"

as used in section 2D1.1(b)(2)(A); and, citing United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), that the district court’s imposition of the enhancement violated the Sixth

Amendment. Reviewing de novo, see Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 779

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1094 (2003), we conclude that Ray procedurally

defaulted the first point by failing to raise on direct appeal the specific challenge to

the enhancement that he now brings, see Auman v. United States, 67 F.3d 157, 160-

61 (8th Cir. 1995), and that he cannot rely on Booker to challenge the enhancement

in this collateral proceeding, see Never Misses A Shot v. United States, No. 05-1233,

2005 WL 1569403, at *2 (8th Cir. July 7, 2005) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1236 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938573