Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10054 Su m m ar yC al 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. D O N A L D T E R R E L L B A N K S , al so kn ow nas T-B l u e, 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: 06- C V

- 1800 U SD C N o. 3: 03- C R

- 78- 4
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D onal d Terr el lB anks, fede r alpr i so ner# 30 671- 177, w as c onvi c t ed bya j u ry of conspi racy t o di st ribu t e f i f t y gram s orm ore of cocai n e base, i n vi ol ati on of 21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 8 4 6 , 84 1 (a)( 1 ) a n d(b )( 1 )(A). P ri or to trial, B a n k s p l ed gu i l ty to di s t r ibut i o n of

co c ai ne b as e , i n v i o l at i o n o f Se c t i o ns 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd (b) ( 1) ( C)
. The di s t r i c t c o ur t s e nt e nc e d hi m t o c o nc ur r e ntt e r m s o f i m pr i s o nm e nto f

3 60 m o nt hs f or c on spi racy t o di st ribu t e cocai n e base an d 24 0 m on t h s f or di st ribu t i on of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10054

2 cocai n e base. W e previ ou sl y af f i rm e d h is co n vi ct i on an d sen t en ce on di rect ap pea l , rej ect i n g, am on g ot h er poi n t s, t h e arg u m e n t tha tdu e t o Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S
. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e dp la in e r r o rw h e n it fo u n dc e r ta in fa c ts re la tiv e to s e n te n c in g . Uni t e d St at e s v . Fi e l ds , 1 3 8 F . A p p ’x 6 2 2 , 6 2 5 , 6 2 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Ban ks f i l e d a2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 25 5 m o t i o n, w hi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d. Th e di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed a c er t i fi ca te o f appeal abi l it y o n B anks’ s c l ai m t hat c o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o r ai s e a n obj e c t i o n t o t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s f i ndi ngs o f

dr ug t yp e andq uant i t y pur s uantt o A pprend iv. New Jersey , 5 3 0 U .S
. 4 6 6 (20 0 0 ), con sti tu tedi n effect iv e a ssistan ce of cou n sel. W h eth er co u n sel’ s fa i l u re to p reserve t h e B ookeri s s ue b y m ak i ng an Appr e ndio bj e c t i o n c o ns t i t ut ed i ne f fe c t ive a s s i s t a nc e w as r e c e nt l y ad dr e s s e d i n Uni t e d St at e s v . Fi e l ds , 565 F. 3d 2 9 0 , 2 9 3 -9 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). A t t h e tim e o f B a n k s ’ s s e n t e n c i n g , th e la w o f th is ci rcu i t w a s settl ed tha t Appr e ndidi d n otapp l y t o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es. Se ei d. a t 2 9 5 ; Un itedS ta tes v. R a n d le , 3 04 F. 3d3 73 , 3 78 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2)
. The fai l u re of cou n sel to a n ti ci p a te tha t B ookerw o u lda p p ly th e ru le o f Appr e ndito t he Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes ort o pr edi c t“t he abs ol ut e s ea- c hange i n fed er al s e nt e nc i ng wr o ughtby B o oker” doe s notc ons t i t ut e c ons t i t ut i onal l y i nef fec t ive a s s is ta n c e . Fi e l ds , 5 6 5 F .3 da t 2 9 5 -9 7
. C o n tr a r yto B a n k ’ s a r g u m e n t, th e d is tr ic t co u r t d idn o t e r rb yd e n y in gh is m o tio n w ith o u t a h e a r in g . T h e fa c ts re le v a n t t o th is ca s e a r e e s s e n tia lly u n d isp u te da n da r e c o n clu siv e insh o w in gth a t B a n k s is n o t en titledto r e li e f. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B art h olom ew , 9 7 4 F .2 d3 9 , 4 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). F o rth e f

ore go i n g rea son s, th e j u d gm en t of th e dist ri ct cou rt is AF F I RMED.