Opinion ID: 794195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Blakely and Booker Apply to This Case.

Text: 13 Lefkowitz argues that his Sixth Amendment rights as construed in Blakely and Booker were violated when the district judge at sentencing found facts by a preponderance of the evidence, particularly the amount of loss caused by his fraud, that dramatically increased his guidelines sentencing range. In April 2005, we issued an order revising Question 2 of the certificate of appealability to include whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in Booker applies to this case. Thereafter, a panel of this court held that the `new rule' announced in Booker does not apply to criminal convictions that became final before the rule was announced, and thus does not benefit movants in collateral proceedings. Never Misses A Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2005). This holding is controlling here. Thus, Lefkowitz is entitled to no relief on Question 2. 14 We further note that Lefkowitz's briefs include many additional arguments raised as purported Booker issues. They are nothing of the kind. They simply rehash arguments that were made or that could have been made in Lefkowitz I and Lefkowitz II — for example, that certain elements of his conviction under the continuing financial crimes enterprise statute, 18 U.S.C. § 225, were not proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the district court violated the unanimous jury principle of Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999), when it resentenced Lefkowitz after his conviction on two of the forty-five counts was overturned on direct appeal. The district court thoroughly considered these issues. See Lefkowitz III, 289 F.Supp.2d at 1082-85. We decline to consider them because they go far beyond the scope of the certificate of appealability. 15 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.