FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 7, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1579 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00057 -CR- LA C-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us DECARLOS ANTJUAN MITCHELL, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 7, 200 5)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAT ES
Be fo re T JO FL A T , MA RC U S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.
PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c as e is b ef

or e the Co urt f

or c onsi de ratio n inli ght

of U nited St at es v. Bo oke r, 543 U
. S. __, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ). W e pr ev iou sly a ff irm ed Appe llant D ec ar los A ntj uan Mi tc he ll’ s (“ Mi tc he ll” ) se nte nc e. T he S upr em e Co urt va cate d our pr ior de ci si on and r em an de d th e ca se to us f or f urthe r co nsi de ratio n inli ght of Booker. Mi tc he ll ap pe al ed

his 264 -m onth se nte nc e fo llo w ing his co nv ic tio n f or poss es sio n of a fi re ar

m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 9 22( g) a nd 924(e)(1). Mitchell challenges his sentence on the basis that the district court erred by enh an ci ng hi s s en te nc e u nd er t he arm edcare er cr im in al pro vi si on , U.S.S.G. § 4 B 1
. 4 an d b y

fin di ng th athe was s ub

ject t o e nh an cedpe na lt ie s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 924( e)
. Mi tc he ll did not ra ise a co nst itu tio na l ch al le nge to his se nte nc e, nor did he
as se rt e rr or ba se d on App rendi v. N ewJe rs ey , 530 U
. S. 466 , 120 S
. Ct
. 234 8, 147 L.Ed.2 d 4 35 (20 00 ), orit s p ro ge ny. T his Co urt r ec en tly

a ddr es se d asim ilar ca se w hic h had bee n r em an de d inli ght of Bo oke r. S ee U nit ed

Sta te s v. D oc ke ry , 200 5 W L 487 735 (1 1 Ci r. Marc h 3, th 2005 ). In Docker

y , w e observed that the appellant in th at case did no t raise a
co nst itu tio na l c ha lle nge or a n arg um en t ba se d onAppr en di or Appr en di p ri nc ipl es . See Docker

y at *1. W e further noted the m anner in which w e handled cases that had3

be enr em an de d w ithins tr uc tio ns t o r ec onsi de r in l igh t of Appr en di: Nothing in the Apprendi opinio n requires or suggests th at w e ar e oblig ated t o co n s i der an issue not raised in any of the briefs that ap p e l l a n th a s f

i l e dw i t h u s . N o r

i s t h e r e a n y t h i n g i n t h e S up r e me Court’ s rem and order, which i s cast in the usual langu age, requiring that w e tr eat the c as e as tho ugh the Appr en di i ssu e ha s be enti m el y r ai se d in this Court. In the absence of any requirem ent to t h e co n t rary in either Appr en di o r in the or de r re m an din g th is c as e to u s, w e ap ply our w el les ta bli she d r ul e that iss ue s and c ont en tio ns n ot t im el y r ai se d inthe br ie fs a re de em ed

abandon ed
. Id
. ( quot ing U nit ed St at es v. A rd le y , 242 F. 3d 989, 990 (1 1 Ci r. ), ce rt . de nie d, 533 th U. S. 962, 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L. Ed. 2d 77 4 (2001)). Be cause h e m a d e n o a r g u m e n t s i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f r a i s i n g B o o k e r

/ Ap p r e ndi rel at edis su es , Mit ch el l h as ab an do ne d t ho se is su es on ap pe al
. A c c or di ng ly, we reinstate our previous op inion in this case and affirm , once a gain, Mitchell’ s sentence af t ero u r r e c o n s i d er at i o n i n l i g h to f B o o k er , p u rs u an tt o t h e S up re m e C o u rt ’s
m an da te . OPI NIO N REINST ATED; SE NTENCE AFFIRMED.

TJ O F LA T, C i r c u i tJ u d g e , c o n c u rr i n g s p e c i a l l y:

T he S upr em e Co ur

t va cate d our j udgm en t i n th is c as e an d re m an de d th e ca se fo r furthe r co nsi de ratio n in li ght of U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r. C iti ng U nit ed S ta te s v.Appellant ra ised the issue in his petition for rehe aring . We summarily denied the 1 petition in a one-line orde r. 4 A rd le y , w hic h c onst itu te s bi ndi ng pr ece de nt, the c ourt r ef use s to c ar

ry out thi s assignm ent because appellan t failed to raise in his initial brief the issue Booker
re sol ve s; he “ ab an done d” the iss ue . A nte a t __ _. H e is dee m ed

to ha ve aba ndon ed , 1
or w ai ve d, it

e ve n th oughthe iss ue ha d be ene xpl ic itl y fo recl osed b y bin din g pr e c e d e n t a n d n o o n e a n t i c i p a t e d t h e S up r e m e C o u rt ’ s r u l i n g i n B l a k e l yv. W ashingt on, ___ U. S. ____ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the rationale of which Booker ad opt ed
. InU nit ed S ta te s v. L ev y , 391 F
. 3d 1 327, 133 5 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) , in dis se nti ng th to the c ourt’ s r ef

usa l to re co nsi de r enbanc the A rd le y aba ndon m en t/w ai ve r hol din g, I ex pla ine d th e fal la cy

of that ho ldi ng i n th e sc en ar io w e ar e fa ce d w ithhe re —a
re m an d f ro m the S upr em e Co urt w ithins tr uc tio ns t o r ec o n s i d er

the iss ue the appe llant has raised. But for the binding prece dent created by Ar dley and Le vy , I would carr

y
ou t t he Co ur t’s m an da te an d c on si de r th e is su e in li gh t o f Bo ok er.