FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 11, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1465 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-20867 -CR- PCH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JAVIER LOPERA, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 11. 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 BI RC H , D U BIN Aand B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

This case is before the Court for consideration in light o f United States v. Booker , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ). W e pr ev iou sly a ff irm ed in part , and v ac at ed

and rem an de d i n p artLop era’s co nv ic ti on . Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . L ope ra , Ca se N o. 03- 1465 0 ( 11th C ir . Jul . 8, 200 4) ( unpu bli she d) . T he S upr em e Co urt va cate d our pr ior de ci sio n and r em an de d th e ca se to us f or f urthe r co nsi de ratio n inli ght of B ook er . On direc t appeal, L opera did not challeng e his sentence and did no t assert er ro r ba se d on Apprendi v. N ew Je rsey , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), or any oth er c as e extending or apply ing th e A ppre ndi pr inc ipl e. H ow ev er , a ft er the opi nio n inhis ca se w as iss ue d, L ope ra

sou ght r eh eari ng b as ed

on B lak el y v. W ashi ngton , 124 S. Ct . 25 31 (20 04 ). W e d en ie d t he pe ti ti on forreh eari ng . In U nit ed Sta tes v . D oc ke ry , 401 F. 3d 12 61, 1262– 63 (11th Cir. 2005 ), after the S upr em e Co urt’ s r em an d w ithins tr uc tio ns t o r ec onsi de r our opi nio n inli ght

of Booker , w e re lied on ou r earlier c ase of United States v. A rdley , 242 F . 3d 9 89 (1 1t h C ir.) , cert. denied , 121 S . Ct . 262 1 ( 2001 ), w hic h ob se rv ed : Nothing in the A

ppre ndiopini on requires or suggests that we are oblig ated to consid er an issu e not raised in any of the briefs that ap p e l l an th a s f

i l e dw i th u s . N o r

i s th e r e an yt h i n g i nth e S up r e me Co urt’ s r em an d or de r, w hic h is c as t i n th e usua l l an gua ge , r equir ing that we treat the c ase as though th e A ppre ndiiss ue ha d be enti m el y raised in this Court. In the absence of any requirem ent to the contrary in either A

ppre ndior

in the or de r re m an din g th is c as e to u s, w e ap ply3

our well-e stablish ed rule that issues and conten tions not tim ely raised in th e b rie fs are d eem edab an do ne d. Ardley , 242 F . 3d at 99 0 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T hus, be ca use D oc ke ry

ha d no t as se rt ed an A ppre ndi (o r its pr oge ny ) ch al le nge to his se nte nc e, w e re ins ta te d our pr ev io us op in io n. D oc ke ry , 401 F . 3d at 12 63. In United States v. L evy , 379 F . 3d 1 241 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) , L ev y sou ght to raise a B lak

el yissue on p etition for rehear ing, althoug h he had never m ade an A ppre ndi -b as edarg um en t i n h is in it ia l b rie f. Id. at 124 1–42 . W e he ld tha t L ev y w ai ve d hi s B lak

el ycla im by not rai si ng itin hi s i ni ti al bri ef o n app eal . Id . at 1 24 5. Be ca use L ope ra

did not a sse rt e rr or ba se d on A

ppre ndi( or

it s pr oge ny ) in his ini tial brief on appeal, we reinstate our previous opi nion in this case and affirm Lopera ’ s convictio n and sentence after our reconsideration in ligh t of Booker , pur suant t o th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s m an da te . H ow ev er , be ca use the j udgm en t contains a clerical e rror in stating that Lopera w as convicted of violatin g “ 8 U. S. C. § 13 24( b) (1 )( B) (I )” ins te ad of “ 8 U . S. C. § 13 24( b) (1 )( B) (i ), ” w e va cate and rem an d wi th in st ru ct io ns forth e d is tri ctco ur t t o re pl ace “ (I)” wit h “ (i) .” OPI NIO N REINST ATED I N PART; AFFIRMED IN PART, AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.