Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BILLINGSLEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-19
Citations: 144 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 03-12483; D.C. Docket No. 00-08161-CR-KLR
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BILLINGSLEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BILLINGSLEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-12483
Non-Argument Calendar.
D.C. Docket No. 00-08161-CR-KLR.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2005.
Dawn Bowen, Anne R. Schultz, Sally M. Richardson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lance Armstrong, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court for consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We previously affirmed Appellant's conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). See United States v. Billingslea, 107 Fed.Appx. 182 (11th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court has vacated our prior decision and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its decision in Booker.
In his initial brief, Billingslea argued that: (1) the district court abused its discretion by empaneling an anonymous jury; (2) the district court abused its discretion by allowing a government witness to testify via satellite video transmission; (3) the district court plainly erred by admitting an unavailable declarant's photograph identification of Billingslea; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Nowhere in his initial brief did Appellant raise a constitutional challenge to his sentence or assert any error based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), or its progeny. Thus, Appellant's Blakely/Booker claim was not timely raised in this Court. As there is nothing in the Supreme Court remand suggesting that we treat this claim as timely, we deem Appellant's untimely Blakely/Booker claim abandoned. See United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we reinstate our previous opinion in this case and affirm Appellant's sentence.
OPINION REINSTATED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.