Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont Andre BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-28
Citations: 223 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 05-35683
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lamont Andre BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 647–647

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lamont Andre BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-35683.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 28, 2007.
U.S. Attorney, Stephen A. Collins, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sue Ellen Tatter, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
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
Federal prisoner Lamont Andre Brown appeals from the district court's judgment denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
Brown contends that when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), it overruled its prior decision in United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (per curiam). Because Watts is no longer good law, he contends, the district court improperly based his sentence on conduct of which the jury acquitted him, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Assuming arguendo that Booker applies retroactively to Brown's case, see Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 389, 114 S.Ct. 948, 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994) (holding that retroactivity must be decided before merits), Booker affords Brown no relief from his sentence because Booker plainly did not overrule Watts. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 240, 125 S.Ct. 738 ("The issue we confront [in Booker ] simply was not presented [in Watts ]."); United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 656 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment denying Brown's § 2255 motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.