FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 18, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 05- 12093 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 0 1 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 R E N A T O U R I A R T E L E B R O N , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m be r18, 2005) B efo re C A R N E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:This total sentencerepresents the se ntenceimposed with respec t to Count1 and the 1 mandatory

60-month consec utive sentenc e with re spect to Count 2. L ebron a dmits that he lodg ed no objec tions to hi s sentenceand, therefore, plain er ror 2 revie w applies. How ever , he urg es us to consider theerror a struc tural one de servingof de novo revie w. In doing so, hepurports to adopt the dissentingopinions in this Court’s denial of the petition for re hearing en banc in United States v. Rodriguez, 406 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005). However, “[t] he law of

this circuit is emphatic that only the Supreme Court or this cour t sitt ing en banccan judicially

overr ule a prior pane l decision.” Carg ill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997). Thus, this argument lacks merit and is not further a ddresse d. Fur thermore , L ebron doe s not challeng e the reasona bleness of his sente nce in light of United States v. B ooker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.C t. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). Theref ore, it is not addre ssed. See United States v. Smi th, 416 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the f ailure to raise a B ooker challeng e in the initial brief a bandons the issue).

2 R enat o U ri ar t e L ebron app ea l s hi s t ot al 10 6-m on th se nt ence , i m po se d aft er 1 he pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tr obbe r y a nd one c ountof ca rr yi ng a f

i re ar m du ri ng a c ri m e of vi ol ence , vi ol at i on s of 18 U . S . C . §§ 19 51 (a ) and 9 24 (c )( 1)(A )( i ), re spec t i vel y. O n app ea l , L ebron argues thatthe di stri ctcourt er re d b y c om m i t t i ng the structural er ror of notconsi deri ng the se nt enci ng fa ct ors se tforth at18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) w hen fas hi on i ng hi s s ent ence . H e a rgues that 2

“ ful l consi dera t i on ” of tho se fa ct ors i s r equi re d, and t hat , beca use the di stri ctcourt d id n o t in d ic a te th a t it h a d c o n s id e r e d a n y o f th e f a c to r s , w e s h o u ld a s s u m e th a t it r e l i e d s o l e l y o n th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th m o r e f

u l l y b e l o w, w e a f f ir m . B e c a u s e L e b r o n d id n o t o b je c t to h is s e n te n c e o n th e g r o u n d s r a is e d in th is a ppe a l , w e w i l l r e vi e w f orpl a i n e r r or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a3

de f e nda nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o obj e c tt o hi s s e nt e nc e on S i xth A m e ndm e ntgr ounds m e a nt tha tthi s C our tw oul d r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e r r or ) . “ A n a ppe l l a t e c our tm a y not c or r e c ta n e r r orthe de f

e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc our tunl e s s the r e i s : ( 1) e r r or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” I d. ( quot a t i on a nd ci t at i on om i t t ed). “ If

al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay then e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e a f o r f e ite d e r r o r , b u t o n ly if

( 4 ) th e e r r o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c ts th e f a ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i ta ny e r r or , pl a i n orothe r w i s e . T he re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe di stri ctcourtconsi dere d t he st atut ory f ac t ors a nd pu rposes pri or t o i m po si ng a s ent ence thati tfoun d t o b e s uffi ci ent , bu tno tm ore than nece ss ar y, t o sat i sf

y tho se pu rposes . W hi l e i tdi d n otspec i fi ca l l y e l aborat e on each and every f

ac t or, w e have s qu ar el y hel d t hat“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he re cord t hati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d ea ch of t he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . S c o tt, N o . 0 5 - 1 1 8 4 3 , m a n u s c r ip t o p . a t 1 1 - 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . S e p t. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpl a i nl y e r rw he n i m pos i ng L ebron’ s s ent ence beca use i tconsi dere d t he st atut ory f ac t ors a nd w as no tre qu i re d t o e l a b o r a t e o rd i s c u s s e a c h o f th e m o n th e r e c o r d . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.