* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20079

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OYENOKACHIKEM CHARLES OSAMOR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-764-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oyenokachikem Charles Osamor was convicted by a jury in December

2002 of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to launder funds, 12

counts of mail fraud, and 9 counts of possession of stolen mail. He was

sentenced to a total term of 175 months of imprisonment. This court affirmed

his convictions and his sentence; however, the Supreme Court vacated this

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20079

2

court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Osamor, 543 U.S. 1113 (2005).

The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. On remand,

the district court imposed a 156-month sentence, which was within the advisory

guidelines range determined by the district court. Osamor appeals.

Osamor challenges his convictions on several grounds. The Government

contends that Osamor is barred from challenging his convictions in this appeal.

In challenging his convictions, Osamor is essentially attempting to reurge

several grounds for relief that were raised and rejected in his initial appeal. The

mandate rule forecloses relitigation of these issues. See United States v. Lee,

358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004). Osamor’s attempts in this appeal to challenge

his conviction on grounds not raised in an appeal prior to this court’s last order

of remand also fail, as such issues are deemed abandoned. See United States v.

White, 24 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 1994)(citing United States v. Camou, 184 U.S. 572,

574 (1902); Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir. 1996). To the extent

that Osamor relies on the intervening decision in United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005) to argue that his convictions are invalid because facts used to

increase his sentence were not charged in the indictment and determined by a

jury beyond a reasonable doubt, his claims are without merit. See Booker, 543

U.S. at 252-53; United States v. Ashlock, 131 F. App’x 984, 985 (5th Cir. 2005).

Osamor argues that this court violated his due process rights in a prior

appeal in this matter by not addressing arguments made in his supplemental

brief. He asks that we recall the previously issued mandate. Osamor cannot

obtain relief in this proceeding because one panel of this court may not overrule

the decision of another absent an intervening decision to the contrary by the

Supreme Court or the en banc court. See UnitedStates v. Rodriguez-Jaimes, 481

F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir.2007).

Relying on Booker, Osamor argues that he was sentenced in violation of

the Sixth Amendment. He contends that the enhancements to his sentence are
No. 07-20079

3

improper because they are based on facts not found by the jury. Osamor

misperceives the impact of Booker, which solved the Sixth Amendment problem

of judicial factfinding not by banning judicial factfinding but by making the

Sentencing Guidelines advisory. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793,

797 (5th Cir. 2006). After Booker, the sentencing court is still required to

calculate the guidelines range in the same manner as before Booker and to make

factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 798. Osamor’s

argument is without merit.

Osamor also argues that his sentence within the guidelines range is

unreasonable. Sentences within a properly calculated guidelines range are

afforded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See United States v.

Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Osamor has not shown that the

guidelines range was improperly calculated, and his argument that the 156-

month sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable is entirely

conclusory and is unsupported by reference to any ofthe sentencing factors of 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Osamor has failed to show that the sentence was

unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.