Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Darnell BERKLEY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 15-55341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Darnell BERKLEY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Darnell BERKLEY, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-55341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Pu-neet Y. Kakkar, Office of the U.S. Attor ney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Brian Darnell Berkley, Sr., Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Brian Darnell Berkley, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's decision to deny a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
Berkley contends that the district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He also argues that counsel was ineffective for mi-sadvising him that if he went to trial, he would be subject to the career offender enhancement and a mandatory life sentence for his violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113.
The government responds that Berkley's motion is untimely. We agree. Berkley filed his motion more than a year after his conviction became final, and he fails to allege the violation of a right that has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 256, — L.Ed.2d - (2015) (the Supreme Court did not announce a new rule in Descamps v. United States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013)). Because habeas claims that are not raised before the district court are not cognizable on. appeal, see Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1994), we do not consider Berkley's claim that he is "actually innocent" of the predicate offenses underlying the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition' is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.