“Jamison knew that he was committing a crime at the time he distributed cocaine base. The new judicial interpretation of the law brought about by Booker affects his punishment, not whether his conduct was innocent. Distributing cocaine base was not made a crime by the Court’s decision in Booker. Jamison also had fair warning that distributing cocaine base was punishable by a prison term of up to twenty years, as spelled out in the United States Code. Jamison had sufficient warning of the possible consequences of his actions, and his sentence does not run afoul of any of the core concepts discussed in Rogers. We therefore join the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting an ex post facto claim based on the remedial holding in Booker. See United States v. Scroggins, 2005 WL 1324808 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2005).”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Shabaz, J., Bauer, J.