P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10668 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. L ES T ER HENRYR OB I NS ON D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C V
- 37 U SD C N o. 3: 92- C R
- 365- 27 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * L esterR ob i n son , fed era lpr i son er #23 9 6 7 -07 7 , plea d ed gu i l ty i n 19 9 4 to c o ns pi r ac y t o di s t r ib u t e a nd p o s s e s s w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e c o c ai ne a nd c o c ai ne b a s e . In 2 0 0 6 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te dR o b in s o n ’ s m o tio n to re d u c e h is sentence pu rsuan tt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582 (c) (2 ) lo w eri n g h i s or i gi n all i fe sentence t o a4 0 0 -m o n t h t e r m o f i m p r is o n m e n t . R o b in s o n n o w a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di s m i s s ala s s uc c e s s ive o f hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 m o t i o n. H e a s s e r t s t hatt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10668

2 i nst antm ot i on w as nots ucc es sive because itr ai se d a c hal l enge t o the 2006 sentence un der Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). To t he ext ent t hat R obi nso n i s c hal l engi ng t he fac t t hat hi s se nt enc e w as enhanced bas ed o n fac t s notadm i t t ed byhi m orf ou n d b y a j ury, t hos e fac t ual f i ndi ngs w er e m ade b y t he di st r i c tc ou rt in c onj unct i on w i t h t he o r i gi nal s e nt e nc i ng, a nd tho s e c l ai m s t hus c o ns t i t ut e a s uc c e s s ive § 22 55 c hall e nget o t he o r ig in a l cr im in a l p r o c e e d in g . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. O ro zco-R am i rez , 2 1 1 F. 3d 862, 869 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) . I n hi s obj ect i on s t o t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s report , how ever, Robi ns o n a r gue d t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ti m pr o pe r l y ap pl i e d t he G ui de l i ne s i n a m an da t ory fashi on d u ri n g t h e 2 006 res en t en ci n g. A s t h e G overnm en tconcedes, t hi s i s s ue c o ul d no t hav e be e n r ai s e d i n c o nj unc t i o n wi t h t he o r i gi nals e nt e nc i ng andi ti s t hus no ts uc c e s s ive . N e ve r t he l e s s , Rob i ns o n couldh a v e ra is e dth is cl ai m i n a di rectapp ealf rom h i s r esentenci n g, bu tbecau se but he did not do so t he c l ai m i s pr o c e dur all y ba r r e d f rom c o l l at e r alr e vi e w a bs e ntc aus e f o rt he d e fa u lt a n da c tu a l p r eju d ic e a s are s u lt. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v . Kal le s t ad , 236 F. 3d 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W hen t he m ovanthas bee n given not i c e o f a pr oced u ra ldefaul tand an opp ort u n i t y t o argu e againstt h e procedu ralbar, an d the G overnm en tha s not i nt e nt i o nall y w aive d t he b ar , w e m ayr ai s e t he i ssue s u as p o n te . SeeSm i t h v. Joh n son , 216 F . 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 3–2 4 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) . W e th eref ore r equ est ed s upp l em ent alb r i e fs o n t he pr o c e dur alde faulti s s ue f r o m Rob i ns o n a nd the G overnm en t , an d both p art i es hav e com pl i ed. A s c au se f or fai l i n g t o f

i l e a di rect a p p e a l fr o m h is re s e n te n c in g , R o b in s o n a r g u e s th a t h e w a s re s e n te n c e din absen t i a, he l acked app oi n t ed c o uns e l , he receivedt h e court ’ s r esentenci n g order over t w o w eeks aft er itw as entered, an d the di st ri ct court di d n otadv i se hi m of h i s r i g h t to app eal . To sh ow cause f or a procedural defaul t , a m ovan tm u st

“ show t h at ‘ som e obj ect ive fact or ext erna l to th e defen se’preven t ed h i m f rom ra i singon direct ap p ea lthe cl a i m h e n ow ad va n ces.” Un i t ed Stat es v. G u erra , 94 F . 3d989 , 993 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (ci t ati on om i t t ed). R obi n son’ s al l egati on s do notN o. 07- 10668

3 e s ta b lis h “c a u s e ” fo rh is p r o c e d u r a l d e fa u lt, s e ei d. , a nd we f i nd no w aive rof

t he pro c edur albar by t he G ove r nm ent . Robi nso n w as r es ent enc ed i n January 2 006, yet h e di d n oteven f i l e t h e i n st an tm ot i on un t i lnea rly a year l ateri n Jan u ary 2007. M or eo ver , R obi nso n i s al sor equi r ed t o de m on str at e a c t ualpr ej udi c e b y dem on st rat i n g “ n otm erely t h at th e err ors . . . cr eated a possibi l i t y of prej u di ce, b u t th a t th eyw ork ed to h i s ac tu a lan dsu b stan ti a ldisa d va n tag e.” Hughesv. Q uar t e r m an , 5 30 F. 3d3 36 , 3 41 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c ita tio n o m itt e d). R o b in s o n d o e s n o t e v e n a d d r e s s , m u c h le s s s h o w , p r eju d ic e in h is s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f, a n dth e is s u e is th e r e fo r e w a iv e d . S ee Yohey v . Col l i ns , 98 5 F. 2d2 22 , 2 25 ( 5t h C i r. 1 993 ) . Bec aus e Rob i ns o n fail s t o o ve r c o m e t he pro c edur albar, h e i s notentit l ed t o re l i ef even as sum i ng argue ndo th a t h is cla im i s not successive. AF F I RMED.