FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 23 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 03- 13916 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 99 -001 37 -C R -N 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 SH I RLEY E. M O N CRI EF, a .k .a . S h ir le yR ile y , 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m be r23, 2005) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F TH E U N I TED STA TES B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an dR O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O n D e c e m be r28, 2004, w e a f f i rm e d S hi r l e yM onc r i e f’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e n te n c e f

o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M onc r i e f , N o. 03- 13916 ( 11th C i r . D e c . 28, 2004) ( unpubl i s he d) . T he c a s e i s be f or e us a ga i n on r e m a nd f r om the S upr e m e C ourtf or f u rth e rc o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h to f i t s d e c i s i o n i n Bo o k e rv . U n i t e dSt a t e s , 5 4 3 U . S.

___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . B ooke rdoe s notr e qui r e us t o a l t e rourpr i orde c i s i on i n thi s c as e. M onc r i e f c ont e nds tha ts he r a i s e d aS i xth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m a ts e nt e nc i ng, bu tthe re cord revea l s thatshe a ctual l y argued abo utthe re l i abi l i ty of e vi dence agai nsther. T hi s i s notsuff i ci entt o p re se rve aB oo ker- re l at ed error. M on cr i ef al so cont ends thati n h eri ni t i al bri ef she r ai se d an A pp re nd i i ss ue, A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) , be c aus e s he a d o p te d th e b r ie f

o f h e rc o - d e f

e n d a n t, C la r e n c e C la y . C la yd idn o t s p e c if ic a llyc ite A ppr e ndi butdi d c ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtha d i m pr ope r l yus e d drug qu ant i t i es t o enh ance hi s pun i shm entatse nt enci ng w hen the drug qu ant i t i es had n o t b e e n d e te rm in e d b yth e ju ryb e y o n dar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. M onc r i e f a dopt e d onl ythe port i ons of C l a y ’ s br i e f

tha tw e r e r e l e va nta nd ap p l i cab l e t o h er case. T h e d ru g q u an t i ty i ssu e d i dn o tap p l y t o M o n cri ef b ecau se she w as no tconv i ct ed of a drug-rel at ed offe nse; her s ol e c on vi ct i on w as for a3

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) a s afe l on i n p osse ss i on of a f i re arm . T here fore , w h e n M o n c r ie f

a d o p te d C la y ’s b r ie f

, s h e d idn o t th e r e b yr a is e a n A p p r e n d i is s u e . I n h e ro wn i n i t i a l b r i e f

, Mo n c r i e f

d i dn o tr a i s e a n yB o o k e r - r e l a t e di s s u e . As w e h a v e e x p la in e d , in aB o o k e rr e m a n dc a s e , “w e ap p lyo u rw e ll- e s tab lis h e dru le thati ss ues and cont ent i on s nott i m el y r ai se d i n the bri ef s are deem ed abando ned. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . A r d le y , 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . M o n c r ie f’s f a ilu r e to r a i s e the i s s ue i n he ri ni t i a l br i e f ba r s he rf

r om doi ng s o now . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a nor de n, 414 F . 3d 1321, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D oc ke ry , 401 F . 3d 1261, 1262–63 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r dl e y , 242 F . 3d 989, 990 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he i ns truc t i ons i n the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s r e m a nd or de rdo not com pel a di ff

er entconcl usi on . S ee D ockery , 40 1 F . 3d at12 62 –6 3; U ni t ed S t at es v. A r dl e y , 273 F . 3d 991, 994–96 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( C a rne s , J . , j oi ne d byB l a c k, H u ll, a n d M a r c u s , J J . c o n c u rr in g in th e d e n ia l o f r e h e a r in g e n b a n c ) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e r ei nst at e our previ ou s opi ni on i n thi s c as e and af fi rm M on cr i ef’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence af t erre consi dera t i on i n l i gh tof B oo ker, p u r s u a n t to th e S u p r e m e C o u rt’s m a n d a te . OP I NI ON RE I NS T AT E D; AF F I RME D.