Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02678/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02678-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Mosley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 7, 2010∗

 Decided January 11, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-2678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROY MOSLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 99 CR 544

Wayne R. Andersen, Judge.

Order

In 2004 we affirmed Roy Mosley’s conviction under 21 U.S.C. §846 for a drug 

conspiracy. See United States v. Kyser, No. 02-2998 (7th Cir. June 24, 2004) (unpublished 

order). Mosley then filed and lost a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255. In 2009 

Mosley asked the district court to correct a clerical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. He 

contends that the judgment should have referred to crack cocaine, and 21 U.S.C. §841, 

as well as §846.

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2678 Document: 24 Filed: 01/11/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-2678 Page 2

It was apparent to the district judge, as it is to us, that Mosley’s goal is not the 

addition of a citation to the judgment, but a fresh chance to get a reduction in his 

sentence. His brief makes this explicit by contending that, if the judgment is amended in 

any particular, even to correct a typographical error, the district court must resentence 

him under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court ruled that the 

judgment is fine as it stands (because the conviction rests on §846 rather than §841) and 

denied the motion; we agree.

The Supreme Court has not declared Booker retroactive to cases on collateral 

review, nor has Mosley satisfied the statutory conditions for filing a second collateral 

attack. The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Case: 09-2678 Document: 24 Filed: 01/11/2010 Pages: 2