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. 08- 50796 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. CURTI S RAYDRI VER 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 W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 6 : 0 5

- CR- 2 1 1

- ALL

B ef ore G A R W O O D , JO L L Yan d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * C u rti s R a y D rive r w a s con victedo f p oss ess i on w i th th e i n ten t to d i strib u te
cra ck co ca i n e a n dpo sse ssion of a f i rea rm du ri n g a dr u g-traff i ck i n g o ff

en se. In D ec em ber2006 D r iverw as s ent enc ed t o c ons ec ut ive t er m s of 48 m ont hs and 60
m on t h s of

i m pri sonm en t
. B y order enter ed A p ril 9 , 200 8, t h e di st ri ctcourt
s ubs e que nt l y gr ant e d a 18 U

. S. C. § 358 2(c ) ( 2) m o t i o n, i n l i ghto f t he Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n’ s r e c e nta m e ndm e nt s t o t he b as e o f fe ns e l e vel s f

o rc r ac k c o c ai ne United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 17, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50796

2 of fen ses, an d redu ced D river ’ s 48-m on t h sentence t o 38 m on t h s. D river al so f i l ed a 28 U

. S. C

. § 2255 m ot i on c hal l engi ng hi s c onvi c t i on. B y o r derent er ed Apri l9, 2 0 0 8 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie dD r iv e r ’ s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . D r iv e rd idn o t a p p e a l th is d ecisi on of th e d i stri ct cou rt. D r ive r no w ap pe al s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s July 10 , 20 08 o r de r deny i ng D r iv e r ’ s m o t i o n, f

i l e d J un e 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , f o r c o p i e s o f t he s e a r c h war r a nt t hatw as executed i n hi s c ri m i n alcase an d hi s arrestrec ords. D river al l eges t h at t h ese recor ds a re n ecess ary t o proceed w i t h a cl ai m chal l en gi n g h i s c on vi ct i on f or po s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e ar m dur i ng a dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng o f

fe ns e . H e a l s o a t t ac ks t he
va l i di t y o f

t he c o nvi c t i o n. Bec aus e D r ive r di d no t t i m e l y ap pe al t he de ni al o f hi s § 22 55 m o t i o n, a ny cha l l en ge t o hi s c on vi ct i on i s not bef ore t h i s c ou rt
. W h en D river fi l ed h i s m ot i on f o rdo c um e nt s i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , he di d no tha ve a § 2 25 5 m ot i o n pe ndi ng be f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ; t hus , D r ive ri s no te nt i t l e d t o f r e e c o pi e s o f

t he d ocu m en ts i n q u estion

. S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Car v aj al , 98 9 F

. 2 d17 0 , 17 0 ( 5 th C i r . 1993) ;W

alkerv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 2 4 F .2d 2 7 8 , 2 7 8 -7 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 7 0 ). Acc o r di ngly, t he di s t r i c tco ur tdi d noter ri n den yi ng D r ive r ’ s m o t i o n. The j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.