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 shedan 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10771 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. CHR I S JAC KS 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 th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V
- 832 U SDC N o . 4 : 0 0
- CR- 2 5 0
- ALL
B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C h ri s R yan Jackson , federalpri soner # 069 14-089, w as convic t ed by a j u ry o f o n e co u n to f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te 3 0 g r a m s o f c o c a in e in vi ol atio n of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841(a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) ( C ) ; one coun tof carryi n g a f

i rearm d u r i n ga n di nr e l a t i o n t o ad r u gt r af f i c k i n go f

fe n s e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 24(c ) ( 1) ; and t w o c ount s of pos se ss i on o f a f i r ear m by a f

el on i n vi ol at i on o f

18 U . S. C. § § 9 22 ( g) ( 1) a nd 9 24 ( a) ( 2) . W e pr e vi o us l y af f i r m e d hi s c o nvic t i o n a nd

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

11, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10771

2 sentence on d i rectapp eal , rej ect i n g, i n t er al i a, t h e a rg u m en tt h at i n l i gh tof 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 dce r ta in fa c ts re la tiv e to s e n te n c in g . J a c k s o n s u b s e q u e n tly file da2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d . Aju d g e o f th is court gran t ed a cert i f i cat e of app eal abili t y on one of t h e ni n e cl ai m s th at Jackson s o ugh tt o r ai s e o n a ppe al : w he t he rc o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o ra i s e an o bj e c t i o n t o t he di st ri ctcou rt ’ s f

i n di n gs of dru g t yp e a n d qu an t i t y pu rsuan tt o A pp rend iv. New Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), co n s tit u te din e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Jac kso n w as s ent enc ed t o 168 m ont hs i n pri so n on t he dr ug c ount . That sentence does not exceed th e st atutor y m axim u m of 20 yea rs t h at appli es w h en th e a m o u n t of c o c a in e is le s s th a n 5 0 0 g r a m s . S ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 84 1 (b)( 1 )( C ). In o t he rw o r ds , J ac ks o n’ s s e nt e nc e di d no te xc e e d the m ax i m um a ut ho r i z e d b y t he j u ry verdi ct ; t h u s, t h ere w as no Appre ndiv io la tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cooper , 2 7 4 F .3 d2 3 0 , 2 4 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); Un itedS ta tes v. D og gett , 230 F. 3d 160, 164- 65 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) . I t f

oll ow s t hat c ounse l di d notr enderi nef fec t ive as si st anceby fai l i n g t o rai se w h at w ou l d hav e been a m erit l ess A pp re n d i- b a s e do bje c tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ki m ler , 1 6 7 F .3d8 8 9 , 8 9 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). As f o ra ny fail ur e o f

c o uns e lt o pr e s e rvean obj e c t i o n t o j udi c i alfac t f i ndi ng re g a rd in gd ru gty p e a n dq u a n tityinli g h t of B ooker , t he r e l i ke w i s e w as no in e ffe c tiv e a s s i s t a n c e o f co u n s e l. Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Fi e l ds , 565 F. 3d 290, 2 9 3 -9 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). F o r th e fo r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t of th e d is tr ic tc o u r tis AF F I RMED.