Opinion ID: 2974051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Post Facto Challenges

Text: Havner further argues that because the date of his offense conduct preceded Booker, the ex post facto principle inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibited the district court from sentencing Havner above the unenhanced sentencing range provided by the Guidelines. In other words, he asserts that the remedial holding in Booker cannot be applied to his sentence. 2 Shortly after oral argument in the present case, a separate panel of this Court rejected this argument, holding that retroactive application of the remedial holding of Booker does not violate ex post facto or due process principles. United States v. Shepherd, 453 F.3d 702, 705-06 (6th Cir. 2006). In so holding, this Court joined at least seven other courts of appeals in rejecting Havner’s argument. See id. (citing cases). Therefore, this claim has no merit.
Havner also argues that the district court violated the ex post facto clause by applying the enhancement in Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(5)(B) and (C) to his sentence, asserting that the guideline did not become effective until after the events giving rise to the enhancement. However, after further briefing, it is now clear that the enhancement at issue took effect on December 16, 2000, two months before the relevant conduct occurred, and Havner concedes this point. Therefore, we find that this claim has no merit.