Opinion ID: 38841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: his petition for writ of certiorari. In United

Text: In his appeal to this court, Higginbotham States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 U.S. did not raise any sentencing issues. After App. LEXIS 8701, at  (5th Cir. May 17, Booker was announced, he filed a petition for 2005), we held that “absent extraordinary writ of certiorari raising, for the first time in circumstances,” we will not “consider an any forum, Booker-related sentencing issues. argument raised for the first time in a petition Specifically, Higginbotham argues in his sup- for [writ of] certiorari.” plemental letter brief on remand that under the guidelines that were considered mandatory at Higginbotham responds that Taylor “is the time of his sentencing, the government’s neither controlling nor persuasive,” because, choice to charge the quantity of 150 grams of Higginbotham reasons, Taylor is wrongly heroin, instead of some lesser amount, man- decided, for the reason that in Taylor “the dated a sentence that was unfairly high. He Supreme Court . . . ordered . . . reconsiderarelies on comments from the district judge tion” in light of Booker. Thus, Higginbotham that, he claims, show that the judge thought urges, “[t]he court of appeals may have discre- the resulting sentence to be excessive but tion to decline, in light of intervening law, to required by the guidelines. This, Higgin- revisit cases on its own; it does not have botham asserts, is plain error that requires similar discretion when reconsideration is ordered by the higher court.” (Higginboth- am’s emphasis, footnotes omitted.)