Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Francis WARREN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-16
Citations: 155 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 04-35756
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph Francis WARREN, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph Francis WARREN, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 04-35756.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided Nov. 16, 2005.
Before WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Francis Warren appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence im: posed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Warren contends that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence based on judge-found facts, in violation of 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). Warren's conviction was final as of the dates the Booker and Blakely decisions were issued. Warren's claim therefore is foreclosed because, as we recently held, "Booker does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final prior to its publication." United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir.2005). See also, Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir.2005) (holding in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review). Consequently, we affirm the district court.
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.