Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel ZACARIAS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 05-55413
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel ZACARIAS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel ZACARIAS-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-55413.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 10, 2008.
United States Attorney, William V. Gallo, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Miguel Angel Zacarias-Oriz, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Zacarias-Ortiz appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine.
Zacarias-Ortiz contends that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence based on judge-found facts, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 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). Because Zacarias-Ortiz's conviction was final as of the dates the Booker and Blakely decisions were issued, his claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that "Booker is not retroactive, and does not apply to cases on collateral review where the conviction was final as of the date of Booker's publication"); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.