Case ID: f-appx_157/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony James GARNER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-11191
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 16, 2005.
    Kristen Gartman Rogers, Christopher Knight, Carlos Alfredo Williams, Federal Public Defender, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Leigh Lichty Pipkin, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case for us to reconsider the sentence imposed in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Garner v. United States, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 41, 163 L.Ed.2d 31 (2005). As Garner acknowledged in his reply brief when we first heard his appeal of his sentence, he did not raise his Booker objection in his initial brief but raised it in his motions for supplemental briefing on the issue. Normally, under our established prudential rule, we would not consider issues not raised in the initial briefs on appeal. United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1275-76 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). The fact that the Supreme Court has remanded a case to be reconsidered in light of Booker does not “mandate any particular outcome as to the defendant’s sentence, nor [does it] preclude this Court from applying its prudential rules in a uniform and consistent manner.” Id. at 1280 (citations omitted). Accordingly, having applied our prudential rule, we affirm Garner’s sentence and reinstate our panel’s prior decision in United States v. Garner, 126 Fed.Appx. 463 (11th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED AND PRIOR OPINION REINSTATED 
      
      . At the time of his initial appeal, Booker had not been decided, and Gary raised his objection under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).