Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Arrevalo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-24
Citations: 101 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 01-17457
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Arrevalo GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 741–742

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Arrevalo GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 01-17457.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2004.
Decided June 24, 2004.
William S. Wong, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Felipe Arrevalo Garcia, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
Before: HALL, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Arrevalo Garcia appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine with intent to dis tribute and manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.
Garcia's August 11, 2004 motion for reconsideration of his motion to broaden the certificate of appealability and his second motion to broaden the certificate of appeal-ability is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Garcia's argument that the district court erred in determining that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), should not apply retroactively on collateral review is foreclosed by United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir.2002), and the district court's judgment is 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.