F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 2, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1561 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 05 5- CR-3 -LAC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us BE NN IE F. McCO MBS, II, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 22, 200 5) ON REM AN D F ROM THE SU PREME CO UR T OF THE U NITE D S TAT ES Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c as e is b ef

ore th e Co urt f

or c onsi de ra tio n inli ght

of U nit ed S ta te s v. Booker, __U .S . __, 125 S.Ct. 738 (200 5). W e previously aff irm ed. See United States v . M c C o mb s , N o . 0 3 1 5 6 1 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( u np ub l i s h e d ) . T h e S up r e me Co urt va ca te d ou r pr ior

de ci sio n and re m an de d the ca se to us for furthe r co nsi de ra tio n in l igh t of Bo oke r. Appe llant ch al le nge s his 87- m onth se nte nc e, im pose d pu rs ua nt to h is g uil ty pl ea to po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) . I n hi s in iti al br ie f, Mc Co m bs ar gue d that the dis tr ic t cour t pl ai nly e rr e d b y v i o l a t i n g R

u l e 1 1 o f t h e F e d e r a l R

u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e du r e be ca use the court failed to advise him during hi s plea colloqu y

of (1) the m andatory

$100 special m onetary assessm ent, ( 2) the right to coun sel at sentencing, and (3) the right to testi fy an d p res en t ev id en ce at tri al . Appe llant 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 . E d. 2d 4 35 ( 2000 ), or

a ny oth er c as e ex te ndi ng o r ap ply ing the Appr en di p ri nc ipl e in h is i nit ia l br ie f. Mc Co m bs f ir st m en tio ne d a co nst itu tio na l sent en ci ng e rr or in his petition for rehearing en banc. I n United States v. Ar dley , 242 F. 3d 98 9 (11th Cir.), ce rt . de nie d, 533 U . S. 962, 121 S. Ct . 2621 , 150 L . E d. 2d 774 (2 001) , af te r the Su pr em e Co urt' s r em an d w ithins tr uc tio ns to re co nsi de r our opi nio n inli ght

of Appr en di, w e de cl ine d to re vie w the Appr en di iss ue be ca use it w as not

pr es en te d in3

the appe llant' s in iti al br ie f. I d. a t 99 0 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); se e al so U nit ed S ta te s v. N ea ly , 232 F . 3d 8 25, 830 ( 11th C ir . 2000 ) (" Defen da nt a bandon ed the [ Appr en di] indictm ent issue bynot raising th e issue in his initial brief.") . Rece ntly , w e applied A rd le y to a post -B ooke r re m an d and f ound tha t the de fen da nt ha d a ba ndon ed his Boo k er cl ai m b ec ause he failed to ra ise it at the district court or in his in itial brief. U nit ed S ta te s v. D oc ke ry , __F . 3d__ , 200 5 W L 487 735 (1 1thCi r. Mar. 3, 200 5) . O ur op in io n a ffi rm in g s en te nc e in th is cas e is acco rd in gl y REINSTATED.

T JO FL A T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng: Uni t ed St ates v. A rdley

and its progenyrequire that w e trea t appellant as ha vin g w ai ve d/a

ba ndon ed his Bo oke r cl ai m be ca

use his law y er

f ai le d to r ai se it

in his ini tia l br ie f on a

ppe al . I the re fo re c onc ur in the c ourt’ s j udgm en t. W er e w e w ri tin g on a c le anslate , I w oul d, f

or the r ea sons I ha ve pr ev iou sly ex pr es sed, e nte rt ai n ap pe llant’ s c la im . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. H igd on, 200 5 U . S. App. L E X IS , a t *1 7 ( 11th Cir. July 8, 2005) (T

j oflat, J. , dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc).