Case Name: Ismael BARRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-01
Citations: 223 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 06-35142
Parties: Ismael BARRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 673–673

Head Matter:
Ismael BARRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-35142.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed March 1, 2007.
Ismael Barron, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Ronald J. Friedman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ismael Barron appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
To the extent Barron contends he is entitled to a writ of audita querela to obtain re-sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), his contention is foreclosed. See Carrington v. United States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that petitioners may not obtain re-sentencing based on Booker by collaterally attacking their sentences through a petition for a writ of audita querela).
To the extent Barron contends that he is seeking only a new Presentence Report, this contention also is foreclosed. See Doe v. INS, 120 F.3d 200, 203-04 (9th Cir.1997) (recognizing that, to the extent writs of audita querela still exist, they are available only if a defendant has a legal defense or discharge to the underlying judgment and only when the defense or discharge arises subsequent to entry of the final judgment).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.