FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 January 27, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-13117

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00154-CR-2-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC ORLANDO REESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(January 27, 2005)

Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and LAND*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

_________________

*Honorable Clay D. Land, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting

by designation.
 No other challenges to the judgment of the district court were raised in Reese’s initial 1

brief, and therefore he was not entitled to have the court entertain any other issues. See 382 F.3d

at 1309-10 n.1.

2

The panel’s opinion in this case issued on September 2, 2004, and was

published in 382 F.3d 1308 (11 Cir. 2004). The mandate was withheld pursuant th

to a request by an active judge. In addition to a challenge to his conviction for

insufficiency of the evidence, Reese’s initial brief on appeal also raised a

constitutional challenge to his sentence based upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), arguing that the district court invaded the

province of the jury by finding that the firearm was possessed in connection with

another felony, thus enhancing his sentence by four levels. This objection was 1

timely raised in the district court, and therefore Reese is entitled to preserved error

review on appeal. After the initial briefing in this case, the Supreme Court decided

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Accordingly, and

because the issue had been preserved in the district court and in his initial brief on

appeal, we requested and received supplemental briefs. Our September 2, 2004,

opinion concluded that Blakely did not apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

and did not compel a departure from previous precedent of the Supreme Court and

this Circuit.

On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker,
3

543 U.S. ___ (2005), concluding that a sentence in a posture indistinguishable from

the instant case did violate the Sixth Amendment, and therefore vacated the

sentence and remanded for resentencing pursuant to the holdings of Booker – “both

the Sixth Amendment holding and our remedial interpretation of the Sentencing

Act.” Id., 543 U.S. ___, slip op. at 25 (Op. of Breyer, J. for the Court); 2005 WL

50108 at *26.

Because Booker has no effect on Reese’s challenge to his conviction, we

reaffirm our affirmance of the judgment of the district court with respect to the

conviction. However, in light of Booker, we vacate our previous opinion with

respect to Reese’s challenge to his sentence; we vacate the judgment of the district

court with respect to the sentence; and we remand to the district court for

resentencing consistent with the Supreme Court opinions in Booker. 

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.