FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 23, 2006 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1653 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00091 -CR- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JULIAN DECARLO, JR ., D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 23, 200 6) 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 , MA RC U S an d C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c as e is b ef

or e the c ourt f

or r ec onsi de ra tio n inli ght

of Un ited Stat es v. Booker , 543 U
. S. 220, 125 S. Ct
. 738 (2 005)
. A lon g w ith co -d ef en da nt Lam ont W en de l S m ith , D ef

en da nt J uli anD eC ar lo, Jr
. w as c onvi ct ed an d sente nc ed f or conspi ri n g t o d i s t ri b u t e c o ca i n e h ydr o ch l o ri d e a n dp o s s es s i n g a f i rearm in furtherance of adr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e. W e pr ev iou sly af fi rm ed both de fe ndants ’ c onvi ct ion s a nd
se nte nc es in anunp ubl ish ed opi nio n. T he S upr em e Co urt va ca te d our pr ior de ci sio n a s to D eC ar lo and r em an de d th e
case to us for reconsideration in lig ht of Booker
. De Carlo v. U nited Sta tes , 126 S. Ct
. 130 (2 005)
. Fo r the re as ons tha t fo llo w , w e re ins ta te our pr ior de ci sio n a ff

irm ing D eC ar lo’ s c onvi ct ion s a nd s en te nc es . Our c ircuit precedent holds that anyargum ent n o t ra i s ed in a party ’ s initial br ie f i s c o n s id ered ab an do ne d. U nit ed Sta tes v . D oc ke ry , 401 F
. 3d 1 261, 126 2- 63 (11th Cir. 2005). The Booker decision did noth ing to abrogate that w ell-settled rule. United States v. A rdley , 24 2 F .3d 98 9, 9 90 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). DeCarl o m ad e two
ar gum en ts i n hi s in itia l a ppe lla te br ie fs : ( 1) tha t the e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t t o supp ort his conv ictions, and (2) that the district court erre d in enhancing hi s sentence fo r obstru ct ing j ust ic e an d f or play ing ale ad er shi p r ole in the off en se be ca use the evidence did not suppo rt the enhancem ents. D eCar lo did not raise, in his in itial ap pe lla te br ie fi ng, a ny

iss ue r eg ar din g the c onst itu tio na lity of the G uid el ine s. N orI nh i s s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f

i n g o nr e m an d , D e C ar l o ar g u e s t h a t , e v e ni f h e f a i l e d t o r a ise 1 Booke r arguments at sentenc ing a nd in his ini tial ap p el l at e b ri efing , he is entitled to plain err or revie w now. This ar g ument confuse s failure to preser ve an err or in the trial court with aba ndonment of an issue on appea l. I f a litigant fails to obje ct or otherwise raise an issue in the district court but ra ise s th a t sam e iss ue in his ini tia l app e llate br ie fs , h e is e nti tle d to pla in e rr or re vie w b y

thi s c ourt
. Ho we ve r, wh e the r a l i t i g a n t o b j e c t s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt o r n o t , i f h e f a i l s t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e i nhis ini tia l br ie fi ng to t

his a pp e llate c ourt , h e ha s a

ba nd on e d th e iss ue and

is n ot e nti tle d to any

a pp e llate revie w of that que stion. See United States v. Higdon , 4 18 F .3 d 1 13 6, 11 38 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) (H ull , J ., concur ring in denial of re hear ing e n banc) (distinguishing betwee n the prude ntial doctrines of plain err or re view and a

bandonment). 3 did he a rg ue tha t hi s r igh t t o tr ia l by j ur y w as vio la te d a s ar es ult

of j udi ci al f

ac tf i n d i n g t h a te n h a n c e dh i s sen te n c e . Th u s , De C a r l o ab a n d o n e da n y Booker a rg um en ts he m igh t have ha d. 1 OPINION REINSTATED; CONVICT I O N S AN D S EN TE NCES AFFIR MED.