he must demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his ... part.” Id. at 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029 (internal quotations and citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we have carefully reviewed Mr. Geronimo’s brief, the record of these proceedings, and the district court’s order. First, the district court correctly recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely is not properly applied to decisions on collateral review. See United States v. Price, 400 F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir.2005) (“Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final at the time the Court decided Blakely, June 24, 2004.”). We have ruled the same regarding Booker. See United States v. Bellamy, 411 F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (10th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Second, the district court properly noted Mr.
holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions holding neither booker nor blakely can be applied retroactively holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review