Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-14
Citations: 144 F. App'x 848
Docket Number: No. 03-11967; D.C. Docket No. 02-20093-CR-KMM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-11967
Non-Argument Calendar.
D.C. Docket No. 02-20093-CR-KMM.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 14, 2005.
Lisette M. Reid, Anne R. Schultz, Lisa A. Hirsch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Paul Morris, Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
Last year we affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence for drug conspiracy. United States v. Garcia, 99 Fed.Appx. 885 (11th Cir.2004) (unpublished). The case is back before us on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
The appellant did not raise any Booker-related issue in his brief to this court. The first time he raised any Booker-related issue in any court was in his certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. For that reason, our decision on this remand is controlled by United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam), which held in materially identical circumstances that the appellant was procedurally barred from relief on the Booker issue because of his failure to raise the issue when the case was first before us. Id. at 1262-63; see also United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam); United States v. Pipkins, 412 F.3d 1251, 1251 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we reinstate our previous opinion in this case affirming the conviction and sentence.
OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.