United States v. Tony James Garner , 157 F. App'x 117 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                      FILED
    ________________________          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    November 16, 2005
    No. 04-11191                  THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                 CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 03-00095-CR-1-WS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    TONY JAMES GARNER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    _________________________
    (November 16, 2005)
    ON REMAND FROM THE
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case for us to
    reconsider the sentence imposed in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.___,
    
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 621
     (2005). Garner v. United States, 
    126 S. Ct. 41
    (2005). As Garner acknowledged in his reply brief when we first heard his appeal
    of his sentence, he did not raise his Booker objection 1 in his initial brief but raised
    it in his motions for supplemental briefing on the issue. Normally, under our
    established prudential rule, we would not consider issues not raised in the initial
    briefs on appeal. United States v. Levy, 
    416 F.3d 1273
    , 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (per curiam). The fact that the Supreme Court has remanded a case to be
    reconsidered in light of Booker does not “mandate any particular outcome as to the
    defendant’s sentence, nor [does it] preclude this Court from applying its prudential
    rules in a uniform and consistent manner.” 
    Id. at 1280
     (citations omitted).
    Accordingly, having applied our prudential rule, we affirm Garner’s sentence and
    reinstate our panel’s prior decision in United States v. Garner, No. 04-11191
    (11the Cir. Dec. 22, 2004).
    AFFIRMED AND PRIOR OPINION REINSTATED
    1
    At the time of his initial appeal, Booker had not been decided, and Gary raised his
    objection under Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    , 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
    , 
    159 L. Ed. 2d 403
     (2004).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-11191

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 117

Judges: Carnes, Marcus, Per Curiam, Wilson

Filed Date: 11/16/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024