Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0346-01.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. Luis MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-16108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 16, 2005.
    Linda Julin Mcnamara, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Darlene Calzón Barror, Law Office of Darlene Calzón Barror, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before CARNES, HULL and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

On January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court granted Luis Morales’s petition for writ of certiorari and vacated our decision dismissing his appeal of the district court’s 168-month sentence based on a guilty plea, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). The Court remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Both parties have submitted supplemental letter briefs addressing the implications of Booker, if any, to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court has recently reaffirmed its “ ‘well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.’ ” United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001)). Although neither Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) nor Booker had been decided at the time of the filing of Morales’s initial brief in this Court, it is undisputed that Morales had failed to challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines or his sentencing proceeding in general pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) in his initial brief in this Court. His Booker claim challenging his sentence is therefore deemed abandoned. See Dockery, 401 F.3d at 1262-63.

Accordingly, after our reconsideration of this case in light of Booker, we reinstate our previous opinion and affirm Morales’s sentence.

OPINION REINSTATED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED.