[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 1, 2005
No. 03-15524 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-20211-CR-PAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ELEVESTER TROTTER,
WILLIE H. DENNIS,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 1, 2005)
ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges, and STROM *, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
On January 13, 2005, we issued an unpublished decision, United States v.
Trotter, No. 03-15524 (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2005), affirming Elevester Trotter’s
conviction and sentence. This case is before us again on remand from the Supreme
Court for further consideration in light of its decision in Booker v. United States,
453 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Booker does not require us to alter our prior
decision in this case.
In his initial brief, Trotter did not raise any Booker-related issue. As we
have explained, in a Booker remand case, “we apply our well-established rule that
issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.”
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001). Trotter’s failure to
raise the issue in his initial brief bars him from doing so now. See United States v.
Vanorden, 414 F.3d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Dockery, 401
F.3d 1261, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990
(11th Cir. 2001). The instructions in the Supreme Court’s remand order do not
compel a different conclusion. See Dockery, 401 F.3d at 1262–63; United States
*
Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska,
sitting by designation.
2
v. Ardley, 273 F.3d 991, 994–96 (11th Cir. 2001) (Carnes, J., joined by Black,
Hull, and Marcus, JJ. concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc).
Accordingly, we reinstate our previous opinion in this case and affirm
Trotter’s conviction and sentence after reconsideration in light of Booker, pursuant
to the Supreme Court’s mandate.
OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.
3