Case Name: Patrick J. SAHLI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-18
Citations: 145 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 04-17548
Parties: Patrick J. SAHLI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Patrick J. SAHLI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-17548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 18, 2005.
Patrick J. Sahli, Taft, CA, pro se.
Patrick Hanly, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Patrick J. Sahli appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction by guilty plea on multiple counts of mail fraud. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sahli contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence based on facts either contested by him or found by a preponderance of the evidence, contrary to United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1119-20 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that "Booker does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final prior to its publication") and Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on § 2254 habeas review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.