U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction on multiple counts of bank robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Downing contends that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated at sentencing because the district court sentenced him as a career offender on facts neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Downing’s request for retroactive application of Booker and Blakely is foreclosed by United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not
holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively holding booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under  2255 holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review