FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT AUGUST 24, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 10744 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo . 0 3
- 0 0 0 2 0
- C R
- F T M- 2 9
- DN F 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 A N G E L O J . G I O R D A N O , 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

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 24, 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 IR C H , C A R N E S 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:On 16 July 2004, Giordano moved for leave to f ile a supplemental initi al brief , arguing that 1 his Si x th Amendment rights were violated beca use his sentenc e wa s enhanc ed base d on fac ts neither deter mined b y a jury beyond a re asonabledoubt nor admitted by Giordano a

nd citing B lakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 1 24 S. Ct . 2531 (2004). SeeGiordano I , slip op. at 5-6. We denied Giordano’ s motion, citi ngUnited States v. L evy, 379 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (holdingthat an appellant waived a B lakely claim by failing to addre ss it within his i nitial appellate brief). G iordano I , slip op. at 5. Giordano also raised a B lakely issue in his repl y b ri ef

. Again, citing L evy , we ref used to revie w it beca

use it was not raised in Giordano’ s initi al brief . See id. at 5-6. By extension, an issue raised unde r Apprendi raises a n issue pursuantto Blake ly and Booker. United States v. Grant, 397 F.3d 1330, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2005). We n ote that, eve n if Giordano had timely raised A pprendi, or be en grante d leaveto file a su pp le me ntal brie f ra isi ngAp pre ndi, G iorda no is una ble t o sati sf

y his burd e n to sh owthat hi s substantial rights and the outcome of the proc eeding s wereaff

ecte d beca

use Giorda

no was sente nced at the highest end of theguideline ra ng e and thedistrict court expressed no reser vation about imposing such a

sentenc e. S ee generally R1-68; United S tates v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1331- 32 (1 1 Cir . 2 00 5) ; Unit e d Stat e s v. Rodrigue z, 398 F .3 d 129 1, 12 98 (1 1th Cir .) , c e rt . d e nie d, U. S. th , 125 S. Ct . 2935 (2005). 2 T hi s c as e i s bef

ore us f or consi dera t i on i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 5 4 3 U . S. , 1 2 5 S. Ct
. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. G i o r d a n o v . U n i t e d St a t e s , U . S. , 1 2 5 S. C t . 19 44 (200 5). W e pre vi ou sl y a ff i rm ed G i ordano ’ s s ent ence . S ee U ni t ed S t at es
v. G i ordano , N o. 04 -107 44 (11t h C i r. D ec . 9, 20 04 ) ( “ G i ordano I” ). In hi s i ni t i al br i e f on a ppe a l , G i or da no a r gue d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by not grou pi ng the m on ey l aund er i ng and fra ud char ges und ert he U ni t ed S t at es S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . I d. , s l i p op. a t5. T he S upr e m e C our tva c a t e d our j ud gm entand rem anded t he ca se t o u s f or further c on si dera t i on i n l i gh tof B oo ker. G i or da no di d nota s s e r te r r oron the ba s i s of A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S
. 466, 120 S
. C t . 2348 ( 2000) , ora ny othe rc a s e e xt e ndi ng ora ppl y i ng the A p p r e n d i p r in c ip le in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o rin h is in itia l b r ie f o n a p p e a l. 13

I n U n ite d S ta te s v . D o c k e r y , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , w e a ddr e s s e d a c a s e pr e s e nt i ng a s i m i l a rpr oc e dur a l s i tua t i on: a r e m a nd f r om thehy S up re m e C ou rtw i th i nstruct i on s t o con si der our op i ni on i n l i gh tof B oo ker i n a n appe a l i n w hi c h the a ppe l l a ntdi d notr a i s e e i the ra c ons t i tut i ona l orA ppr e ndi
c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e . I d . a t 1 2 6 2 . I n D o c k e r y , w e a p p lie d “o u rw e lles t abl i shed rul e thati ss ues . . . no tt i m el y r ai se d i n t he bri ef s a re deem ed
a b a n d o n e d ,” r e in s ta te d o u rp r e v io u s o p in io n , a n d a f f ir m e d D o c k e r y ’s s e n te n c e . Id. at12 62 -63 (qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. A rdl ey , 24 2 F
. 3d 98 9, 99 0 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (p er cu ri am )). S u ch i s th e p ro ced u re w e w i l l fo l l o w i n th i s case b ecau se G io r d a n o f

a ile d to r a is e a n A p p r e n d i c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e in h is in itia l b r ie f
. W e r e i ns t a t e ourpr e vi ous opi ni on a nd, upon r e c ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof B oo ker, pu rs uantt o t he S up re m e C ou rt ’ s r em and, af fi rm G i ordano ’ s s ent ence . OP I NI ON RE I NS T AT E D; S E NT E NC E AF F I RME D.