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 MAY 16, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1544 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 14 02 2- CR-DLG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JENNIFER LEEANN LYTL E, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 16, 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 , 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ). W e pr ev iou sly a ff irm ed L ytle ’ s c onvi ct ionand
se nt en ce. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . L

yt le , Ca se N o. 03- 1544 4 ( 11th C ir
. Jul
. 22, 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 . Inhe r ini tia l br ie f on d ir ec t a ppe al , L ytle 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 , L ytle sough t perm issio n to file a supp lem ental brief to ra ise a claim the Guidelines we re unconstitu tional un der B lak el y v. W ashi ngt on , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). W e denied Ly tle’ s m otion to file a
su pp le m en ta l b rie f. 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 a n th a s f

i l e dw i t h u s . N o r

i s th e r e an yt h i n g i n th 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 ply3

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. 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. Id. Nealy furthe r he ld “part ie s c an not pr ope rl y ra ise 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 on the intervening decisions o r newdevelopm ents cited in the sup plem ental authority .” Id

. Be ca use L ytle did

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

ppre ndi(or its progeny ) in her i n i t i a l b r i e f

o n ap 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 n i nth i s c a s e an da f f i rm4

Ly tle’ s convictio n and sentence after our reconsideration in ligh t of Booker , pu rs ua nt to th e Supr em e Co ur t’s m an da te . OPI NIO N REINST ATED I N PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
.