### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Januar y 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 12339 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -002 57 -C R -C C -1 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 I S I A S H R I E C O K E Y E S , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 31, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Is i as h R i ec o K ey es appeal s hi s 181 -m on th sent ence i m po se d aft erhe w as c onvi c t e d of

ba nk r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2113( a ) a nd ( d) ( “ C ountThe district cour t sentence d Keyes to 135 months on Counts One a nd Three , to be serve d 1 concur rently, and 84 months on Count Two, t o be ser ved conse cutively

to the sentenc e imposed on Counts One and Thre e. The district court sentenc ed Keyes t o 97 months on CountOne, with a c onsecutive sentence 2 of 84 months on Count Two. 2 O ne ” ) , a nd us e of

af i r e a rm dur i ng the c om m i s s i on of the c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( “ C ountT w o” ) . K e y e s w a s or i gi na l l y f ound gui l ty notonl y on C ou nt s O ne and T w o, bu tal so on a s epar at e c ou ntof carj ac ki ng (“ C ou ntT hree ”) , a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d t o at ot a l of 219 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , the bott om - e nd of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . O n appe a l , how e ve r , w e va c a t e d K e y e s ’ s c onvi c t i on f or 1 c a r ja c k in g a s w e ll a s h is s e n te n c e , a n d r e m a n d e d f o rr e s e n te n c in g “lim ite d to corr ec t i ng any e rr ors r es ul t i ng fr om the erroneou s c ar j ac ki ng conv i ct i on . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Key es , No . 0 2 - 1 0 4 1 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . At r e s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e a d ju s te d th e G u id e lin e s o f f e n s e le v e l in o r d e rto c om pl y w i th ourm a nda t e , a nd a ga i n s e nt e nc e d K e y e s a tthe bott om of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , t o at ot a l of 181 m onths . A s K e y e s w a s nota dvi s e d of hi s r i ght 2 t o app ea l thi s s ent ence , ho w ever , he m ov ed for anew j ud gm enti n o rdert o p rot ec t hi s r i ghtof

appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d the m ot i on a nd K e y e s the n f i l e d a n o tic e o f ap p e a l. W e v a c a te d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r , h o w e v e r , s o th a t it c o u ld ent era new j ud gm entpu rs uantt o the procedural re qu i re m ent s of U ni ted Stat es v. P hi l l i ps , 22 5 F . 3d 11 98 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). T he di stri ctcourtthen con du ct ed a thi rdAlthough Keyes did object to the application of various sentencingenhanc ements bef ore 3 thedis tric t c ourt

in his f ir st a pp e al, h edid

no t dosoon

c on stitutional grounds . 3 r e s e nt e nc i ng, a nd i m pos e d as e nt e nc e i de nt i c a l t o tha ti m pos e d a tthe pr e vi ous r e s e n te n c in g . O n app ea l fr om hi s thi rd re se nt enci ng , K ey es as se rt s–for the fi rs tt i m e–that the di stri ctcourterre d i n enh anci ng hi s s ent ence , un der am andat ory G ui del i nes r e g im e , b a s e d o n f

a c ts th a t w e r e n e ith e ra d m itte d b y h im n o rf o u n d b y aju ry , in vi ol at i on of U

ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). K ey es al so cl ai m s thathi s tri al coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o rai se a c o n s titu tio n a l o b

je c tio n a t s e n te n c in g d e n ie d h im e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. K eyes co u l d h av e rai sed h i s p resen tco n st i tu t i o n al o b j ect i o n s i n h i s fi rst ap p e a l, b u t f

a ile d to d o s o . T h u s , h e c a n n o t r a is e th e m n o w . See U ni ted Stat es v. 3 D o ckery , 401 F . 3d 1261, 1262- 63 ( 11th C i r . ) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( de e m i ng B oo ke ri s s ue abando ned w here , i n i ni t i al appeal , appel l antdi d n otra i se a c on st i tut i on al c ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc e ora s s e rte rr orba s e d on Appr e ndi , ora ny c a s e e xt e ndi ng or appl yi ng the Appr e ndip r in c ip le ) , ce rt. deni ed , __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 442, 163 L . E d . 2 d 3 3 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. V

an orden , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “B e c au s e V a n O r d e n d id n o t c h a lle n g e h is s e n te n c e o n S ix th A m e n d m e n t-Appr e ndi - B la ke ly - B oo ke rg r o u n d s in h is f ir s t tr ip th r o u g h th is c ir c u it, th is a r g u m e n t is ‘d e e m e d ab a n d o n e d .’” ) , ce rt. deni ed , __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 633,4

__L . E d . 2 d __( 2 0 0 5 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. N

un ez , N o. 04- 10463 ( 11th C i r . J une 28, 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ) ( “[ W ]e f u rth e rn o w c o n s id e rN u n e z ’s s e n te n c e in l i gh tof B oo ke ran d co n cl u d e th atN u n ez ab an d o n ed an y A ppr e ndi/ B lakel

y / B oo ke rc la im b y n o t tim e ly r a is in g ac o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e in h is i ni t i al bri ef

s i n h i s tw o p ri or appeal s. ”) . W e de c l i ne t o c ons i de rK e y e s ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m , on w h ic h af

a c tu a l r e c o r d h a s n o t b e e n p r o p e r ly d e v e lo p e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. See U ni ted Stat es v. B ender , 29 0 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). AF F I RME D.