Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos David HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-22
Citations: 141 F. App'x 900
Docket Number: No. 03-14549
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos David HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 900–901

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos David HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-14549
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2005.
Sandra E. Strippoli, AUSA, Amy Levin Weil, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jay L. Strongwater, Strongwater & Associates, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court for consideration in the light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We affirmed previously Appellant's 120-month sentence imposed after he entered a non-negotiated plea of guilty to drug trafficking offenses. See United States v. Herrera, 116 Fed. Appx. 248 (11th Cir.2004). The Supreme Court has vacated our prior decision and remanded the case to us for further consideration in the light of its decision in Booker.
Appellant raised no constitutional challenge to his sentence and asserted no error based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), or its progeny, in his initial and reply briefs. In United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262 (11th Cir.2005), we concluded that " 'our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned,' " (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001)) applies to Booker error; an appellant who fails to raise a Booker ¡Apprendi issue in his initial brief has abandoned that error on appeal.
No Booker/Apprendi sentence challenge has been raised timely — or at all — in this case. We reinstate our previous opinion and affirm, once again, Appellant's sentence after our reconsideration in the light of Booker, pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate.
OPINION REINSTATED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED.