FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 19, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1633 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 00-14038 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us VA LENT IN E E WAR, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 19, 200 5)
Be fo re T JO FL A T , BI RC H and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

V al en tin e E w ar

appe al s hi s 46 -m onth se nte nc e, im pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty to illegal reentry

by an aggravated fe lon after deportation, in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 13 26( a) , ( b) (2 ). B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not r equir ed to hol d a
re se nte nc ing he ar ing or

giv e E w ar

an op portun ity

to al loc ute w he n it

va cate d hi s
or igi na l se nte nc e an d r ei m pose d th e ex ac t sam e se nte nc e in o rd er to al lowE w ar

to fil e an ou t-o f-t im e ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t err. Acco rd in gl y , we AFFIRM
. I. BACKG ROUND InJul y 200 0, af ed er al gr an d j ur

y r et ur ne d aone -c ount

ind ic tm en t c harg ing Ew ar w ith un lawf

ully ree ntering the United States. In January 2001 , E war entere d int o aw ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t, w he re by

he w oul d e nte r a ple a of

gui lty to the sol e
co unt of the ind ic tm en t. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , E w ar state d th at

he ha d no obj ec tio ns t o th e pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep or t. E w ar ’ s c ouns el pr oc ee de d w ith the allocution on Ew ar’ s behalf. The district court advised Ew ar that he c ouldsay whatever he liked on hi s own behalf, but Ew ar dec lined. T he district court sentenced Ew ar to the low e nd of the Federal S entencing Guidelines (“ guid elines”) range, 46 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, f

ollowed by

two y ears’ supervised relea se. The district court elicited obj ections to th e sentence, but Ew ar’ s counsel3

state d th at

the re w er e no o bj ec tio ns. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dvi se d E w ar that he m ust ap pe al w ith in 1 0 day s. N o a ppe al w as take n. E w ar f ile d apr o se 28 U
. S. C. § 22 55 m oti on t o va cate , a lle gin g in ef fe ct ive
as sis tanc e of

c ouns el be ca

use , a m ong oth er

thi ngs, c ouns el f

ai le d to f ile anot ic e of ap pe al on h is b eh al f. R el y ing on U nit ed S tate s v. P hil lip s, 225 F
. 3d 1 198 (1 1th Ci r. 200 0) , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d E w ar ’ s § 2 255 m oti on “ fo r the sol e pur pose of e nabli ng V al en tin e E w ar to fi le anot ic e of

appe al in his c ri m ina l c as e. ” R1 -3 0 at1. The di st ric t co ur t v acat edEwar’s sen te nc e an d re im po se d t he same sen te nc e. The c ourt also advis ed Ew ar that he ( a) had the right to appeal the reim posed sentence, and (b) m

ust appeal within 10 d ay s if he intended to do so. E war then fi le d th e ins tant a

ppe al
. O n a ppe al , E w ar

arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y r es en te nc ed

him in hi s an d h is co un se l’s ab se nc e an d wi th ou t af fo rd in g Ewar t he rig htof a ll oc ut io n. He m aintains that th e district court err ed by summ arily

resentencing him

by an order entere d in cham

bers without any

notice or hearing. Ew ar a lso contend s that Ph ill ips doe s no t r equir e the dis tr ic t c ourt t o r ei m pose the se nte nc e or igi na lly im pose d bu t on ly

state s th at

the sam e se nte nc e “ shou ld” be r ei m pose d. F ina lly , he
ar gue s th at

be ca use tw o y ears ha d pa sse d be tw ee n th e ini tia l and s ec ond4

se nte nc ing , and the se co nd s en te nc e w as im pose d by adif fe re nt j udge , f

ai rn es s req ui redth atEwar be all owe d t o p ers on al ly add res s t he di st ric t co ur t. II. D ISCU SSION W e re vie wthe le ga lity

of ac ri m ina l se nte nc e de nov o. U nit ed S tate s v. Prouty , 303 F. 3d 12 49, 1251 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). W e have determ ined that “ [w ] hen the district courts of this circuit conclude that an out-of-tim e appeal in a c rim inal case is w arranted as the rem edy in a § 2255 proceeding, they shoul d effe ct that
rem edy in the following way : (1) the cr im inal judgm ent fromwhich the out-oftim e ap pe al is to b e pe rm itt ed sho uld be va cate d; ( 2) the sam e se nte nc e shou ld the n be r ei m

pose d; ( 3) upo n r ei m

posi tio n of

that se nte nc e, the de fe ndant s houl d be advis ed of a ll the r igh ts a sso ci at ed

w ithan a ppe al f ro m any c ri m ina l se nte nc e; and (4) the defe ndant sh ouldalso be advised that th e tim e for f iling a notice of appeal fr om that r e- im

pose d se nte nc e is t enday s, w hic h is dic tate d by Ru le 4( b) (1 )( A )( i) [o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e].” Phi ll ip s, 2 25 F.3dat 1 20 1. In the present case, the district court did no t err by resentencing Ew ar
w ith out hol din g ahe ar ing or

giv ing him

the opp ortun ity

to al loc ute . P hil lip s
re qui re d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o r es en te nc e E w ar to the sam e se nte nc e or igi na lly im pose d onhim

and d id n ot r equir e the dis tr ic t c ourt t o ho ld a r es en te nc ing hearing wher e E war w ouldhave had the oppo rtunity to allocute. T he district courtEwar did not raise in the district cour t, i n h i s i n i t i al b rief, nor in a motion to file a * supplemental brief

a constitutional or statutory challeng e to the calc ulation of his sentence under the Fe d er al SentencingGuidelines. As such, a ny possible claim based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s rec ent dec isions in Unit ed S tates v. Booke r, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct
. 738, ___ L .Ed.2d ___ (2005), and B lakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L .Ed.2d 403 (2004), ha s been abandone d. See United States v. Doc kery , No. 03-16388 (11th Cir. Mar . 3, 2005 ) (holding that a pp e lla nt a ba nd on e d h is B oo ke r c la im o n ap pe a l by no t ra isi ng a tim e ly c on sti tut ion a l c ha lle ng e to his sentence in his ini tial brief)
. 5 properly followed the procedure outlined in Philli ps as the court, in its order granting Ewar’ s § 225 5 m otion for the purpose of allowing himto file an out-oftim e ap pe al , va cate d th e or igi na l se nte nc e, im pose d th e ex ac t sam e se nte nc e, and ad vi se d Ewar o f th e ri gh ts an d t im e li m it at io ns ass oc ia te d wi th th e ap pe al
. Furthe r, pr inc ipl es of

f ai rn es s di d no t r equir e that E w ar be giv enthe opp ortun ity to al loc ute be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d th e sam e se nte nc e be ca use the sol e pur pose of the r es en te nc ing w as to pe rm it E w ar to pur sue adir ec t a

ppe al and ins tr uc t hi m on the r igh ts a sso ci at ed

w iththat a

ppe al , w hic h w as a cc om

pli she d by the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r. T hus, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt w as not r equir ed to hol d a * hearing or allow E war an opportuni ty to allocute. III. C ONC LUS ION Ac ar ef ul r ev ie wof

the r ec or d and the appl ic ab le lawc om pe ls the conclusio n that Ew ar’ s sentence is due to be AFFIRMED.