Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otto Bear CHILD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 167 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 05-35135
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Otto Bear CHILD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Otto Bear CHILD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-35135.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 17, 2006.
Marcia Good Hurd, Esq., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Otto Bear Child, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Otto Bear Child appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the 220-month sentence imposed following a jury trial conviction for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) and 1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo, United States v. Day, 285 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The issue of whether Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), are retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review is foreclosed by United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2005). The district court therefore properly denied the § 2255 motion.
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.