FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Sep tem ber 30 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 02- 1145 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 01- 0008 6- CR -F T M- 29 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us WARRIC K LASHAW

N LEVY, a . k . a . Wa l s y, 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 Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 30, 200 5) ON REMAND FROM THE S UPREME COURT

OF THE U NITE D S TAT ES Be fo re D U BIN A , BL A CK a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:We note that Appellant did ar g ue in his initi al brief that 21 U.S.C. § 841 was 1 unconstitutional in l ight of Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. C t. 2348 (2000). 2 T he S upr em e Co urt va cate d our pr ior opi nio n inthi s c as e an d r em an de d it for consideration in lig ht of United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L. E d. 2d 621 (200 5). W e dir ec te d th e part ie s to f ile sup ple m en ta l br ie fs to ex pla in whe n th e Appellant first ra ised the B ook er issue and ho w the B ook er decision app lies. I n his su pplem ental brief, the Appellant, W arric k Lashaw n Levy , a feder al prisoner se rv ing a262 -m onth se nte nc e fo r dr ug tra ff ic kin g, a rg ue s th at

w e shou ld v ac at e his se nte nc e an d r em an d th e ca se to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r e- se nte nc ing in lig ht o f Booker . How ever, the Appellant concedes that he “ did no t raise[] a Blakley or Booker iss ue in his ini tia l br ie f” ( Appe llant’ s S uppl em en ta l L ette r Br ie f at 7) a nd that hi s f ir st atte m pt t o c ha lle nge the c onst itu tio na lity of his se nte nc e w as in his pe tit ionf or sup ple m en ta l br ie fi ng, w hic h th is c ourt de nie d. T he G ove rn m en t 1 responds that the Appellant’ s challenge to his s entence w as not tim ely raised be fo re t hi s co urt b ecau se th e arg um en t was no t i nc lu de d i n h is in it ia l b rie f. Be ca use w e co nc lud e that e ve n if Appe llant p re se rv ed

his B ook er ar gum en ts h e has failed to establish pl ain error , w e af firm the Appellant’ s sentence.3

Our pre cedents are clear

that failure to ra ise a sentencing challenge und er A ppre ndi/ Blakley/ Booker in the initial b rief on appeal bar s a defendant fr om later se ek in g t o c ha ll en ge hi s s en te nc e. Se e, e . g. U nit ed Sta tes v . Se ars , 411 F . 3d 1 240, 1241 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ The Appellant’s f ailure to raise the issue in his init ial brief bars him f ro m doi ng s o no w . ”) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . D oc ke ry , 401 F . 3d 1 261, 126 2- 63 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( fo llo w ing the “ w el l- es ta bli she d r ule that i ssu es a nd c ont en tio ns not ti m el y r ai se d inthe br ie fs a re de em ed abandon ed . ”) ; United States v. L evy , N o. 01- 1713 3, 200 5 W L 162 0719 , a t *4 -5 ( 11th C ir . Jul y 12, 200 5) ( ex pla ini ng this court’ s prudential rule that parties raise issues in their initi al briefs and no ting th at such rule is not u ndul y

harsh). Appellant’s denied attem pt to file a supplem ental br ie f rai si ng th e is su e d oe s n ot sav e h im fro m th is ba r. Se e Se ars , 411 F. 3d at 1241 (“ [Appellant] did attem pt to file a supplem ental brief r aising su ch an issue, but w e de nie d hi m

pe rm iss ionto do s o. T he Appe llant’ s f ai lur e to r ai se the iss ue in h is i nit ia l br ie f bars him f ro m doi ng s o no w . ”) . Mo re ove r, the r em an d in st ru ct io ns fro m

th e Supr em e Co ur t d o n otde m an d a di ffer en t re su lt . How ever, “ we have liberally construed what it m eans to raise a B lak el y -ty pe or Booker -ty

pe issue.” Levy , 2005 W L 1620719 , at *4-5. Be cause the re cord reveals that Appellant m ay have preserved the issue by raising a challenge under A ppre ndiin hi s i ni ti al bri ef, we wil l b rie fly add res s t he ch al le ng e to hi s s en te nc e.4

Appellant contends th at the district court err ed when it enhanced his sentence based upo n the court’ s determ ination s that he assaulted a law enforcem ent officer an d r ec kle ssl y

c re at ed asub stanti al r isk

of de ath or se ri ous bodi ly

inj ur y dur ing fl igh t f ro m lawe nf or ce m en t. A lth oughAppe llant i nit ia lly obj ec te d to the enhancem ents, he subsequentl y withdrewhis objections–o bje ctions th at ch al le nge d th e fa ct s un de rl y ing the e nhanc em en ts. D ur ing the ple a co llo quy Appe llant a dm itt ed

that he r ep eate dly

r am m ed his ve hic le a s lawe nf

or ce m en t ag en ts atte m

pte d to blo ck

his ve hic le a nd arr es t hi m ; tha t he dr ove thr oughay ar d, ove r a sid ew al k, a nd h it tw o lawe nf or ce m en t ve hic le s; and tha t he le d ahig h spe ed c ha se . T hus, Appe llant a dm itt ed the f ac ts unde rl y ing his e nhanc em en ts. This court review s for plain err or challenges under Apprendi/Blakley/B ooker rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th e in it ia l b rie f on ap pe al . Exam ining first the issue of Booker c onst itu tio na l e rr or , w e co nc lud e that be ca use Appe llant a dm itt ed

the f ac ts tha t e nhanc ed

his se nte nc e, the re is no S ixth Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . She lto n , 400 F . 3d 1 325, 133 0 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ( hol din g th er e w as no S ixth A m en dm en t vi olatio n w he re de fe ndant adm itt ed to the f ac ts tha t e nhanc ed

his se nte nc e) . T ur

nin g to the iss ue of

non c o n s t i tu t i o n a l o r

s t a tu t o ry B ook

er er ro r, a nd a ppl y ing pla in e rr or , w e m ust de te rm ine w he the r the re w as “ (1 ) er ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, a nd ( 3) that a ff ec ts5

subs tantial rights.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . F

ie lds , 408 F . 3d 1 356, 136 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (quot at ionom itt ed ). T he f ir st and s ec ond pr ongs of the pla in e rr or

te st are e as ily sa ti sf ie d. Se e id. Mo vin g to the thi rd pr ong, w e m

ust de te rm ine “ w he the r the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult

if the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d in an advisory

instead of bind ing fashion by the sentencing judge in this case. ” Id . (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . [I ] f it is e qua lly

pla usi ble that the e rr or

w orke d inf

av or of the de fe nse , the de fe ndant l ose s; i f the e ff ec t of the e rr or is unc er ta in s o that w e do n ot k

noww hic h, if

e ith er , sid e it he lpe d th e de fe ndant los es . Whe re e rr or s c oul d have c ut e ith er w ay a nd unc er

ta inty e xis ts, the bur de n is the de ci siv e fa ct or in the thi rd

pr ong of the pla in e rr or te st, a nd the bur de n is on the de fe ndant. Whe re [ w ] e j ust don ’ t kn ow w he the r the de fe ndant w oul d have r ec ei ve d ale sse r se nte nc e if the gui de lin es ha d be ena dvi sor y , the de fe ndant h as not

m et his bur de n of showing prejudice. Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Appe llant at the bottom

e nd o f the G uid el ine s r an ge , thi s f

ac t a lon e doe s no t c ar

ry the de fe ndant’ s burd ento show th atth e err oraffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Se e F ie lds , 408 F . 3d at 13 60- 61 (holdin g that Appellant’ s sentence at the bottom of the G uidelin e range alone was not e noug h to sa tis fy

thi rd pr ong of the pla in e rr or

te st) . I nst ea d, “ the f

ac t tha t the district court sentenced the defendant to th e bottom of the applicable guidelin es range establishes onlythat the court felt that the sentence w as appropriate under6

the m an da tor

y gui de lin es sy ste m [; ] [ i] t do es not e sta bli sh a r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that the court would have im posed a lesser sentence under an advisory regim e. ” Id . In fac t, her e the district court indicated its hesit ation in im posin g a sentence at the lowe nd o f the G uid el ine s:

I [a gr ee to se nte nc e y ou at the bottom e nd o f the G uid el ine s] af te r som e se ri ous co nsi de ratio n inli ght of y our c ri m ina l hi sto ry

a nd the e ve nts sur

ro undi ng y our

a rr es t or im m ed ia te ly pr oc ee din g th e ar re st. . . . O ff

se t a ga ins t tha t i s th e fa ct that y ou h av e ple d gu ilty [and] adm itted y our responsib ility for this particular e vent. A nd have, I sus pe ct , w ise ly

w ith dr awn y our

obj ec tio ns [ to the se nte nc ing en hanc em en ts] in lig ht o f the te sti m ony that I w as he ar ing . Doc. 27 at 18-19. Based upon the foregoing , Appellant has failed to dem onstrate a reasonable probabilitythat the district court would have im posed a lesser sentence
u n d e r a n a d v i s o ry g u i d e l i n e s ys t e m. Ac cordingly , we aff

irm Appellant’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.