Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Louis Zeno Lawrence, also known as Lewis Zeno Lawrence

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 17, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50324
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LOUIS ZENO LAWRENCE, also known as Lewis Zeno Lawrence
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-01-CV-407-SS
USDC No. A-97-CR-4-3-SS
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Louis Zeno Lawrence, federal prisoner # 45605-080, appeals
his resentencing pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for his
federal convictions for possessing marijuana with intent to
distribute and for conspiring to commit money laundering. He had
originally received concurrent sentences of 292 months’

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50324
-2-
imprisonment and 240 months’ imprisonment respectively. In
response to Lawrence’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the district
court concluded that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 266 (2000),
applied retroactively to cases on collateral review and imposed
consecutive sentences of 52 months’ imprisonment and 240 months’
imprisonment, respectively. Lawrence’s notice of appeal was
timely filed in a civil action. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B);
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings; United States
v. Rodriguez, 114 F.3d 46, 47-48 (5th Cir. 1997).
This court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on
the question whether Lawrence was entitled to be present at his
resentencing. While this case was pending on appeal, this court
ruled that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on
collateral review. See United States v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 306
(5th Cir. 2002). This court must apply Brown, as it is the law
in effect at the time of our decision. See Griffith v. Kentucky,
479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987); Bradley v. School Board of City of
Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974). The district court, which
was acting without the benefit of Brown, did not have the
authority to correct Lawrence’s sentence pursuant to Apprendi.
Because Lawrence’s sentence never should have been corrected, the
issue upon which COA was granted is moot. The judgment of the
district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for imposition
of the original sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --