Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02533/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Guy Randy White Horse
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2533

___________

Guy Randy White Horse, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2006

Filed: December 27, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guy Randy White Horse appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion challenging his sexual-abuse conviction. Having received a certificate

of appealability from the district court, he raises issues related to ineffective assistance

of counsel and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

Upon de novo review, we conclude that White Horse’s ineffective-assistance

claim fails because it is not reasonably probable that, but for his counsel’s alleged

Appellate Case: 05-2533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2006 Entry ID: 3263039
-2-

errors, the result of his criminal proceedings would have been different. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 (1984) (ineffective-assistance claim

requires showing that (1) counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and (2)

deficient performance prejudiced defense, meaning there is “a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have

been different”); Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 2003)

(district court’s denial of § 2255 relief is reviewed de novo). We further conclude that

White Horse’s Booker claim is unavailing. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States,

413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (rule announced in Booker does not

apply to final criminal judgments on collateral review). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2006 Entry ID: 3263039