W e re ly o n the m a g istra te ju d g e ’s R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n fo r th is info rm a tio n b e c a u se the p a rtie s d id 1 no t i ncl ud e Sa m s’ s p l ea agreem ent i n t he joint ap p end i x.

NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0807n.06 F iled: Novem ber 19, 2007 Case No. 05- 5772 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT F ERLIN SAM S, P etitioner -Appellant,

v. UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DI S TR IC T O F K

EN TU CKY

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , C OLE a nd G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALIC E M . BA TC HELDER, Circ uit Jud ge. F e rl in S ams, a pr o s e fe de ra l pr iso ne r, a

pp e a ls the district court’s de nial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mot ion to vacate sentenc e. F or the following

re a so ns , w e AF F I RM. In 2002, Sams pled g uilty to conspirac y

to manufac ture less than f ifty g rams of a

mix ture or substance c ontaining me thamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, po s s essi on of a f irea rm duringand in re lation to a drug traffic king offense , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)( A)(i) , and forf eiture of assets, pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)( 1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461. Sams ag ree d to waive h i s s t at u t o ry ri g ht to appeal his guilty plea a nd conviction; he also wa ived his rig ht to attack collater ally

his guilty plea a nd conviction. He did not w aive his r ight to a ppeal his se ntence
. Under 12

the then-ma

ndatory Guidelines, the district cour t sentence d Sams to 106 months’ imprisonment and enter ed judg ment on J anuar y 22, 2003. Although the sentenc ing c ourt notified Sams of his limi ted rig ht to appeal, Sams did not file a direc t c riminal appea l. His conviction and sentenc e, ther efor e, beca me final ten da

y s later. On J uly 15, 2004, Sams, actingpro se, f iled a motion to vacate sentenc e pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleg ing, inte r a lia , that his sentence violated Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The mag istrate judg e re commended that the district court deny Sams’s petition because (1) § 2 25 5’ s o ne -ye ar limi tatio n pe ri od ba rr e d Sams ’s mot ion , ( 2) in h is p le a a g re e me nt, Sams e xpre ssl y

wa ive d th e ri g ht t o a

pp e a l and c oll ate ra lly

atta c k h is c onvic tio n, (3 ) S ams p ro c e dura lly de fa ult e d h is sentenc ing c laim beca

use he did not fi l e a d i re ct appe al, and ( 4) Blak e ly is n ot r e tr oa c tiv e ly applicable on collater al re view. Prior to the di strict court’s reviewing the m ag istrate judg e’s Repor t and Recommendation, Sams requeste d a dela

y pendingthe Supreme Court’s de cision in United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). Fo l l o wi n g Booke r , Sams submit t ed a memorandum of la w in support of his § 2255 mot ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Sams’ s § 22 55 mot ion , a do pti ngthe fi nd ing s in the magi st rate jud g e ’s Re po rt

and Re c omm e nd atio n a

nd c on c lud ing

that Booke r is not retroa ctively applicable on collater al re view. This cour t gr anted Sams a c ertificate of a ppeala bilit y “w i th respec t to Sams’s claim that his sentence violates the Supreme Court’ s rulings in Blak e ly and Booke r .” On appe al, Sams argues that he is entitled to a new sentenc ing he aringbeca use the district court violated the Six th Amendment when it imposed his sentence . Sams also argues that our r ece nt decision in Nichols v. United States , 5 01 F .3 d 542 (6 th Cir . 200 7) , man date s hab e a s re lie f b e c a us eT he s ent enc i ng cour t di d not en han ce Sams’ s s ent enc e bas ed upon f act s not f

ound by t he j ur y or adm i t t ed 2 b y Sa m s. T he d i st rict co urt d i d , ho w ev er, senten ce S am s und er the the n-m an d ato ry G uid eli ne s. 3 his trial counsel did not raise a n Ap pr e nd i ar gum en t ats en t en ci n g.

2 After a de novo revie w of the rec ord, applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we hold that the d is tr ic t c o urt c o r

r e c tl y c o n c lu d e d th at Sams ma y n o t r a ise a B o oker

challeng e in his collatera l proce eding s. See V

alentine v. United States , 488 F.3d 325, 329 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“Bo ok e r cre ated a ‘new rule’ that could not be raised by defe ndants whose convictions beca me final at any

time prior to Booke r ’s J anuar

y 12, 2005, issuance.” ). Our re cent de cis ion in Nic ho ls is inapposite here . In Nic ho ls , the petitioner filed a § 2255 mot ion “ arguin g that his co un se l wa s ine ff e c tiv e fo r fa ili ng . . . to argue tha t th e e nh anc e me nts to h is then-mandatory

Guidelines ra

ng e violated the Sixt h Amendment, as w as l at er decided by the Supreme Court in Booke r .” Nic ho ls , 501 F.3d at 543. “B eca use Ap pr e nd i c a st t he c on sti tut ion a lity of the F e de ra l Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s into c on sid e ra ble do ub t, a

nd be c a us e the e nh anc e me nts to Nichols’s Guidelines r ang e dire ctly prese nted circ umstances that we re c alled in to question by Apprendi , . . . Ni c ho ls’ s c ouns e l w a s c on sti tut ion a lly ine ff e c tiv e fo r f

a ili ngto p re se rv e a

Sixth Amendment cha lleng e to his sentence .” Id . at 548. Sams, how ev er , did not file a direc t appea l, nor did he ra ise an inef fec tive assistance of counsel c laim in his § 2255 m otion. I nstead, he filed his § 2255 m o t i o n o n t h e g rounds of Blak e ly/ Booke r err or by the sentenc ing c ourt. He did not contend that his sentenc e shoul d be vac ated beca use his counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to a rgue that the then-ma

ndatory Guidelines violated the Six th Amendment, and we will not entertain that ar gument now. Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Sams’ s § 22 55 mo ti on to v a c ate4

sentenc e.