offense. See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir.1997); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1199-1200 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Williams seeks leave to file a supplemental brief in which he contends that the adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) violated Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because it was based on facts not charged in his indictment, not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and not admitted by him at his plea hearing. Williams has submitted his supplemental brief, and his motion to file it is GRANTED. As Williams concedes, his Blakely argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert, filed (U.S. July 14,
holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions holding blakely not retroactive holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines holding that blakely did not apply to a case that was final but not on direct review when blakely was decided and in which the trial court later allowed a belated appeal