F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 1 2, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1547 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00078 -CR- E UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us DA VI D F RAN KL IN CO TN EY , JR. 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 12, 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 BL A CK , CA RN E S an d P RY O R, 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 , 12 5 S . Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). W e p rev io us ly affirm edCo tn ey ’s sen te nc e. See United States v. C

otney , Ca se N o. 03- 1547 3 ( 11th C ir
. S ep t. 15, 200 4) (unpub lis he 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 case to us for f

urther consideration in lig ht of B ook er . Inhis ini tia l br ie f on d ir ec t a ppe al , Co tne y

did not a sse rt e rr or ba se d on Apprendi v. N

ew Je rsey , 120 S
. Ct
. 234 8 ( 2000 ), or any oth er c as e ex te ndi ng o r apply ing th e A

ppre ndi principle. H owever , C otney sough t perm issio n to file a supp le m en ta l br ie f to p re se nt a ddi tio na l arg um en ts c onc er nin g Blakelyv. W ashi ngton , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 53 1 (2 00 4) . W e d en ie d C ot ne y ’s m ot io n. 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 ply 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.3

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 U nit ed Sta tes v . Ne aly , 232 F. 3d 82 5, 830 (11th Cir. 2000), w e denied N ea ly ’ s a tte m

pt t o r ai se an A

ppre ndi -b as ed

arg um en t f

or the f ir st t im e by

f ili ng a supp le m en ta l br ie f. W e not ed that “ [p ] ar

tie s m ust sub m it al l i ssu es on a

ppe al in their initial briefs.” Ne alyheld supp lem ental briefs w ill be authorized onl y when intervening decisions o r newdevelopm ents arise af ter the m ovin g party ’ s brief has be enf ile d, and o nly

w he n th at

ne wauth or ity

r el at es to aniss ue a lr ea dy pr ope rl y rai se d i n t he pa rty’ s i ni ti al bri ef. Nealy furthe r he ld “part ie s c annot pr ope rl y r ai se
ne wiss ue s a t su

ppl em en ta l br ie fi ng, e ve n if the [ ne w ] iss ue s ari se ba se d onthe intervening decisions o r newdevelopm ents cited in the sup plem ental authority .” Id

. Be ca use Co tne y

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

ppre ndi( or

it s pr oge ny ) in h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f

o nap p e a l , w e r e i n s t a t e o u r p r e v i o u s o p i n i o ni nth i s c a s e an da f f i rm Cotney ’ s sentence after

our reconsideration in ligh t of Booker , pur suant t o th e Supr em e Co ur t’s m an da te . OPINION REINSTATED IN PART; AFFIR MED IN PART.