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 J UNE 20, 2005 THOMAS 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. 02- 1430 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00074 CR-1- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us CHA RL ES FL OY D P IPK IN S, a. k. a. S ir Ch ar le s, ANDREW

MOORE, JR ., a. k. a. Batm an , D ef en da nts -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 20, 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 E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A , and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

The Supr em e Co ur t v acat edou r pr ev io us op in io n i n t hi s ca se , United States v. P i p ki ns , 3 7 8 F.3d 12 81 (11th Cir. 2004 ), v ac ate d at ___U
. S. ___, 125 S
. Ct
. 161 7 (2005), and rem anded this case f or further c onsid eration in light of United States v. Booker , __

_U.S._

__ , 12 5 S . Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). W e dir ec te d the pa rt ie s to fi le supp le m en ta l br ie fs to ex pla in w he n the De fendants first raised the B ook er issue, whether the issue w as tim ely raised before this court, an d h o w t he B ook er decision app lies to this case. In their supplem ental br ie fs , the D ef

en da nts c ont en d th at

w e shou ld v ac at e the ir se nte nc es an d re m an d th ei r cases to the district court for re-sentencing in ligh t of Booker
. T he D ef en da nts not e tha t the y f ir st c ha lle nge d th e co nst itu tio na lity of the ir se nte nc es in the ir

P et iti ons fo r Rehear ing En Banc. In these Pe tition s, the D efendants asserted that the district court
m ade v arious factual findin gs which th e cou rt u sed to enhance their sentences. They argue that these findings we re not fou n d b y a ju ry bey ond a reasonable doub t, a s
r e qu i r e db y B lak

el y v. W ashi ngt on , ___U
. S. ___, 125 S
. Ct . 2 531 (2 005)
. T hus, the De fendants contend th e y

ar e e nt i t l ed to re-sentencing. T he Governm ent responds that the De fendants’ constitu tional ar gum ents w ere not tim ely raised before thi s court be ca use the y w er e not inc lud ed in the ir ini tia l br ie fs
. Be ca

use w e co nc lud e tha t the D ef en dants ’ c onst itu tio na l arg um en ts w ere no t t im el y r ai se d, w e re ins ta te our pr ev iou s op ini on a ff

irm ing the D ef

en da nts ’ c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es .3

T he D ef en dant s, Ch arl es Flo y d P ip ki ns an d An dr ew Mo or e, tw o A tla nta pim ps,
w er e co nvi ct ed of

c onsp ir ac y

to vio la te the Ra ck et ee ri ng I nf lue nc ed Co rr upt O rg an iz at ion s A ct

( “ RI CO ”) , a nd o the r of fe nse s. P ipk ins ’ to ta l se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t w as 30 y ears an d Moo re ’ s tot al se nte nc e w as 40 y ears . W e m ust f ir st determ ine whether the De fendants’ constitu tional challenges to their sentences we re tim el y . T he w el l- es ta

bli she d law in our ci rc uit re qui re s th at iss ue s be r ai se d inthe pa rti es ’ in it ia l b rie f. See U nited Sta tes v. Lev

y , 37 9 F .3d 12 41 (11 th Cir .), reh’g en ba nc de ni ed

, 39 1 F .3d 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Pi pki ns and Moor e fi rs t cha lle nge d the co nst itu tio na lity of the ir se nte nc es in their Petitions for Rehear ing En Banc. In these Petitions, the De fendants argued that the Su pr em e Co urt’ s op ini on i n Blakely inv al ida te d the ir se nte nc es . T he D ef

en dants
co nte nd tha t the y

f ai le d to r ai se thi s is sue in the ir ini tia l br ie fs be ca

use our pr ec ed en t at the ti m e cate gor ic al ly

pr ec lud ed

a n A ppre ndi -type ch al le ng e. See United States v. Sanchez , 269 F. 3d 12 50, 1262-63 (11t h Ci r. 2 0 01) (en banc) ( “ A ppre ndi doe s no t ap ply to j udge -m ad e de te rm ina tio ns p ur suant to the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. ”)
. B ut the D ef en dants ’ fa ilure to m ak e the ir ar gum en t in the ir ini tia l br ie f is n ot e xc use d by t h e f a c tt h a to u r p r e c e d e n t w a s t h e n t o t h e c o n t r a ry. E v e n i f o u r p r e c e d e n t a tt h e t i me foreclosed their ar gum ent, the D efendants still had to raise this issue in their initial br ie f an d as se rt that our pr ec ed en t w as w ro ngl y de ci de d inor de r fo r us t o c onsi de r it.4

It is thr oughthi s pr oc es s th at the lawe vol ve s. B y

m ak ing suc h an arg um en t i n th ei r ini tia l bri ef

to thi s c ourt, the D ef

en da nts w oul d have pr es er ve d th ei r ar gum en t f

or fu rth er app el la te rev ie w, bo th in th is co ur t an d i n t he Supr em e Co ur t. See Levy, 379 F. 3d at 12 43 n.3 (no tin g th at “ w hil e L ev y ma y n o th a v e p r e d i c t e dt h e S up r e me Co urt’ s ul tim at e co nc lus ion s in B lak el y , it is a lso true that the general ar gum ent that
a j ur y m ust de te rm ine a ll fa ct s r eg ar din g se nte nc e en ha nc em en ts w as a va ila ble to L ev y a nd ind ee d m ad e by

de fe ndants e ve r sin ce the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s c am e int o be in g” ). W e have a long-standing rule that we will not consider issues that were argued fo r the fi rs t tim e in a pe tit ion fo r re he ar ing , an d w e adhe re to tha t ru le today
. See Levy , 379 F
. 3d a t 12 42
. Mor eo ve r, the re is nothin g inthe S upr em e Co urt’ s r em an d
or de r tha t r equir es us t o tr eat this c as e as tho ugh the iss ue ha d be enti m el y r ai se d in th is co ur t. Se e U

nit ed St ates v . D oc ke ry , 401 F
. 3d 1 261, 126 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) (quot ing United States v. A rdley , 2 4 2 F
. 3 d 9 8 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) )
. A n d , t h e S up r e me Co urt m ad e cl ea

r in B ook er tha t w e ar e to a

ppl y our “ or din ar y pr ude nti al doc tr ine s” in co ns id eri ng th es e types of ch al le ng es to sen te nc es . Booker , ___ U
. S. a t __

_, 125 S. Ct
. a t 76 9. O ur or din ar y pr ude nti al doc tr ine r equir ing part ie s to r ai se a ll iss ue s in their initial briefs precludes us from addressing th e D efendants’ argum ents asserted fo r th e fi rs t t im e b efo re t hi s co ur t i n t he ir P et it io ns forReh eari ng en Ban c.5

Our op in io n a ff

i rmi n g t h e d e f

e n d an t s ’ c o n v i c t i o n s a n ds e n t e n c es , United States v. Pip ki ns , 378 F.3d 128 1 (11th Cir. 2004), is, therefor e, REINS TATED.