### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 9, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10567 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 02 -005 51 -C R -O D E -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s J E S S I E L E E S M I T H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 9, 2005) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F TH E U N I TED STA TES B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h i s case i s be f

or e the C ourtf

orc ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v.2

B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S
.

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , _

_L . E d . 2 d __( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e p r e v io u s ly af fi rm ed A pp el l ant ’ s c on v ic t i on and 2 62 -m on th sent ence for posse ss i on of a fi re arm by a c on vi ct ed fe lo n , in v i ol at i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 92 2(g) and 9 24 (e ). S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, C a s e N o. 04- 1 0 5 6 7 (1 1 th C i r . O c t . 12, 2004) ( un p u b l i s h e d )
. Th e Su p r e me Co u rt v a c a t e d o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n a n d r e ma n d e d t he
c a s e to u s f

o rf u rth e rc o n s id e r a tio n in lig h t o f B o o k e r . In h i s i n i t i al b ri ef, A p p el l an t ch al l en g ed th e su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev id e n c e to supp ort hi s conv i ct i on and argued that hi s arm ed-c ar ee r- cr i m i nal se nt en ce vi ol at ed th e E x P o stF a c t o C l au se an d co n st i tu t ed cru el an d u n u su al p u n i sh m en t . N o t ab l y, A ppe l l a nt d i d n o t a s s e rt e rr o r b a s e d o n A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U
. S. 4 6 6 , 120 S
. C t . 2348, 147 L
. E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) , ora ny othe rc ase ext e ndi ng orappl y i ng the A pp re nd i pri nci pl e. In U ni t ed S t at es v. A rd ley, 24 2 F
. 3d 98 9 (11 th C i r. ),
c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 1 S . C t. 2 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , a f te rth e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s r e m a n d w ith i ns tru ct i ons t o r e c ons i de rouropi ni on i n l i ghtof A ppr e ndi , w e obs e rve d the f o llo w in g : N ot hi ng i n the A pp r e nd i op i ni on r e qu i r e s ors ug ge s t s tha tw e ar e ob li g ated t o con si der a n i ss ue no tra i se d i n any of the bri ef s that ap p e l l a n th a s f

i l e d w i th u s . N o ri s th e r e a n y th i n g i n th e Su p r e me C ourt ’ s r e m a nd or de r , w hi c h i s c a s ti n the us ua l l an g u age , r e qui r i ng th a t w e tr e a t th e c a s e a s th o u g h th e A p p r e n d i is s u e h a d b e e n tim e ly ra i se d i n thi s C ou rt . In the abse nc e o f any requi re m entt o the contrary in ei th er A p p ren d i o r i n th e o rd er rem an d i n g th i s case t o u s, w e a p p ly ou r w el l -e st abl i shed rul e thati ss ue s an d cont ent i on s nott i m el y r ai se d3

i n the br i e f

s a r e de e m e d aba ndone d. Id
. a t990 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e a l y , 232 F
. 3d 825, 830 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ D e f e n d a n tab a n d o n e d th e [ A p p r e n d i ] i n d i c tme n ti s s u e b y not
r a is in g th e is s u e in h is in itia l b r ie f .” ) . W e r e c e n t l y e x t e n d e d th e f o r e g o in g ru le to pr e c l ude unt i m e l y c ha l l e nge s ba s e d on B ooke r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t es v. D oc ke ry , 401 F
. 3d 1261 ( 11th C i r . 2005)
. I n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f i n thi s c a s e , A ppe l l a nta s s e rt e d no
s u c h Ap p r e n d i ( o ri t s p r o g e n y ) c h a l l e n g e t o h i s s e n t e n c e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we
re in state o u r p re v io u s o p in io n in th is ca se an d af firm , o n ce ag ain , A p p ellan t’ s
c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e a f te ro u rr e c o n s id e r a tio n in l i g h t o f B o o k e r , p u r s u a n t to th e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s m a n d a te . OP I NI ON RE I NS T AT E D; S E NT E NC E AF F I RME D.