United States v. Bautista-Ramos
This text of 155 F. App'x 959 (United States v. Bautista-Ramos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Ricardo Bautista-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we affirm.
Bautista-Ramos contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence based on judge-found facts, contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). His claim is foreclosed because Booker does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final prior to its publication. See United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1119 (9th Cir.2005).
To the extent Bautista-Ramos raises an argument not encompassed within the certificate of appealability (“COA”), we construe this as a motion to broaden the COA and deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
155 F. App'x 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bautista-ramos-ca9-2005.