FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

October 17, 2005

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

ARTHUR HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.	No. 04-2341
(D.C. Nos. CIV-04-01247 BB/RLP and  CR‑01‑823 BB)
(D. N.M.)	

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

	Arthur Harris, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition.  For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Harris’s request for a COA and DISMISS.  
	Harris is currently serving a 120-month sentence following his plea of guilty for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  He collaterally attacked his sentence in the court below by raising a challenge under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
  Finding that Blakely was not retroactively applicable to initial habeas petitions, the court denied Harris’ § 2255 petition and also denied Harris’s subsequent application for a COA.  Harris now seeks a COA from this court arguing that his sentence is invalid under Blakely/Booker.
	This circuit has held that Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral review.  United States v. Bellamy, 411 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2005).  Additionally, Booker does not require the submission of a prior conviction to the jury.  We have held that “the ‘fact’ of prior convictions . . . need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury,” because “[i]n previous criminal proceedings, a defendant received sufficient procedural protections to alleviate any Sixth Amendment concerns about using convictions stemming from those proceedings for sentencing.”  U.S. v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2005). 
	Because we determine, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, that Harris may not raise a Booker challenge on collateral attack, and that Harris fails to state a Booker challenge in any event, his application for a COA is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

							ENTERED FOR THE COURT

							Carlos F. Lucero
							Circuit Judge