United States v. Elevester Trotter

158 F. App'x 215
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedDecember 1, 2005
Docket03-15524; D.C. Docket 03-20211-CR-PAS
StatusUnpublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 215 (United States v. Elevester Trotter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Elevester Trotter, 158 F. App'x 215 (11th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

On January 13, 2005, we issued an unpublished decision, United States v. Trotter, 129 Fed.Appx. 597 (11th Cir.2005), affirming Elevester Trotter’s conviction and sentence.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. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Ardley
242 F.3d 989 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Garry Dockery
401 F.3d 1261 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. John Howard Vanorden, Jr.
414 F.3d 1321 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Barry Leon Ardley
273 F.3d 991 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 F. App'x 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-elevester-trotter-ca11-2005.