Cornejo

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Rafael Cornejo appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 360-month sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Cornejo contends that the district court erred by concluding that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not retroactively apply to initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions because the rule announced in Apprendi is a substantive change in the law. This contention is precluded by our decision in United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 667-71 (9th Cir.) (concluding that Apprendi is a new rule of criminal procedure that does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 939 , 123 S.Ct. 48 , 154 L.Ed.2d 243 (2002); Rees v. Hill, 286 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.2002) (applying the same rule to second or successive petitions). 1 Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Cornejo’s § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

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…