United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
REVISED JUNE 28, 2005
June 27, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 03-60833
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JAMES O. OGLE,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Defendant-
Appellant Ogle’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.
Ogle, No. 03-60833, 2004 WL 78109 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(unpublished). Following our judgment, Ogle filed a petition for
certiorari, in which he challenged for the first time the
constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines as applied to him.
The Supreme Court granted Ogle’s petition for certiorari, vacated
-1-
our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further
consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). We now reconsider the matter in light of Booker and
decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Ogle’s
conviction and sentence.
Because Ogle did not raise any Booker-related challenges to
his sentence until his petition for certiorari, we will not
review his claim absent extraordinary circumstances. United
States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 WL 1155245, at *1 (5th Cir.
May 17, 2005). Our cases make it clear that an argument not
raised in appellant’s original brief as required by FED. R. APP.
P. 28 is waived.1 Appellant argues that based on remarks made by
the trial judge at sentencing, he can satisfy the plain-error
test discussed in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22
(5th Cir. 2005). Even if appellant can satisfy the plain error
test, he has not met the even more exacting test required to show
the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which requires
appellant to show a “possibility of injustice so grave as to
warrant disregard of usual procedural rules.” McGee v. Estelle,
1
See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499
th
(5 Cir. 2004)(party waived argument not included in original
brief to panel); Yokey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993). See also 16A C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE § 3974.1 at 501 (1999)(issues not raised in
appellant’s initial brief normally will not be considered by the
court); FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9)(A) which states that an
appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the
reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of
the record on which the appellant relies.”
-2-
722 F.2d 1206, 1213 (5th Cir. 1984) (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, we decline to consider the merits of his Booker
challenge. Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the
Supreme Court’s instructions, we REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming
Ogle’s conviction and sentence.
-3-