Buenrostro

United States v. Buenrostro

Good Law
163 F. App'x 524
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 17, 2006No. 04-16570California243 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Luis Buenrostro appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

Buenrostro contends 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), does not apply retroactively to his case. Although he recognizes this court’s ruling in United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that Apprendi is not retroactive on collateral review), he contends that intervening Supreme Court authority has superseded Sanchez-Cer vantes. This court, however, has rejected this exact contention in Cooper-Smith v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore affirm the district court’s order.

We decline to expand the scope of Buenrostro’s certificate of appealability to include Buenrostro’s remaining claims. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (explaining that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.