### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J anu ary 27, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1311 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00154 -CR- 2-N- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ERIC ORLANDO REESE, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry27, 200 5) Before AN DE RSO N and BIRCH , C ircuit Judg es, and LA ND *, D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ _ *Honora ble Clay D. L and, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of G eorg ia, sitting by desig nation.No other c halleng es to the judg ment of the district cour t were raised in Ree se’s initial 1 brief, a nd there fore he wa s not entitled to have the c ourt enter tain any other issues. See 382 F .3d at 1309-10 n.1. 2 The panel’ s opin ion in this case issued on Septem ber 2, 2004 , and was publ ish ed in 382 F. 3d 1 308 (1 1 Ci r. 200 4) . T he m an da te w as w ith he ld p ur suant th to a r eque st b y

an a ct ive j udge . I n a ddi tio n to ac ha lle nge to his c onvi ct ionf or ins uf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , Re es e’ s in iti al br ie f on a ppe al a lso r ai se d a co nst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e ba se d up on Appr en di v . N ewJe rs ey , 530 U . S. 466 , 120 S . Ct . 234 8 ( 2000 ), arg uin g th at the dis tr ic t c ourt i nva de d th e pr ovi nc e of

the j ur y by f ind ing that the f

ir earm w as pos se sse d inc onne ct ionw ith another felony , thus enhancing hi s sentence by four levels. T his ob

j ection was 1 tim el y r ai se d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, and the re fo re Re es e is e nti tle d to pr es er ve d e rr or reviewon appeal. A fter the initial briefing in this case, the S uprem e Court decided Bl ak el y v. W as hin gto n, 542 U . S. ___ , 124 S . Ct . 253 1 ( 2004 ). A cc or din gly , and be ca use the iss ue ha d be enpr es er ve d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and i n hi s in iti al br ie f on ap pe al , w e re que ste d and r ec ei ve d su ppl em en ta l br ie fs . O ur

S ep te m be r 2, 200 4, opin ion conclu ded that Blakely did no t apply

to the Federa l Sentencing Guidelines an d di d no t c om

pe l a de part ur e fr om pr ev iou s pr ec ed en t of

the S upr em e Co urt and thi s C ir cu it. On January

12, 2005, the Suprem e Court decided U nited States v. Booker,3

543 U . S. ___

( 2005 ), c onc lud ing that a se nte nc e in a

pos tur e ind ist ing uis hable f ro m the ins tant c as e did

vio la te the S ixth A m en dm en t, and the re fo re va cate d th e se nte nc e an d r em an de d f

or r es en te nc ing pur suant t o th e hol din gs o f Bo oke r – “both the S ixth A m en dm en t ho ldi ng and o ur r em ed ia l i nte rp re ta tio n of the S en te nc ing Ac t .” Id ., 5 4 3 U.S . _

_ _ , s l i p o p . a t2 5 (O p . o f B re yer, J . f o r t h e C o u rt ); 2 0 0 5 WL 5010 8 a t *2 6. Bec au se Bo ok er h as no effe cton Rees e’s ch al le ng e to hi s co nv ic ti on , we re af fi rm our a ff ir m an ce of the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithr es pe ct to the co nvi ct ion . H ow ev er , in lig ht o f Bo oke r, w e va cate our pr ev iou s op ini on w ith respect to Ree se’ s challenge to his s entence; w e vacate the j udgm ent of the district co urt w ithr es pe ct

to the se nte nc e; and w e re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th e Supr em e Co ur t o pi ni on s i n B oo ke r. AFFIR MED in pa rt, VACATED in pa rt, a ndREMANDED.