Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry BANKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-08
Citations: 134 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 04-11715; D.C. Docket No. 03-00196-CR-J-25HTS
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11715.
D.C. Docket No. 03-00196-CR-J-25HTS.
Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 8, 2005.
Lisa Call, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Marcio W. Valladares, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
Larry Banks was convicted of possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and sentenced as an armed career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On November 16, 2004, we affirmed his conviction and sentence. Notably, Banks did not challenge the constitutionality of his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) before the district court or this court. Nor did he move for rehearing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our opinion and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Because Banks did not raise a constitutional challenge to his sentence before the district court or this court, any possible claim based on the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Booker and Blakely has been abandoned. See United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (holding that appellant abandoned his Booker claim on appeal by not raising a timely constitutional challenge to his sentence in his initial brief).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.