UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BARRY LEON ARDLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 2001-02-20
No. 98-7033
Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
242 F.3d 989 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2001) Caution
Cited by 72 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: We have previously affirmed the conviction and sentence in this case. See United States v. Ardley, 202 F. 3d 287, No. 98-7033 (11th Cir. Nov. 18, 1999).

The Supreme Court has vacated our prior judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we reinstate our judgment affirming the conviction and sentence. Ardley did not raise the Apprendi issue when the case was before us prior to the certiorari petition being filed. He did not mention that issue in his initial brief, his reply brief, or in the suggestion for rehearing en banc that he filed. Nothing in the Apprendi opinion requires or suggests that we are obligated to consider an issue not raised in any of the briefs that appellant has filed with us. Nor is there anything in the Supreme Court’s remand order, which is cast in the usual language, requiring that we treat the case as though the Apprendi issue had been timely raised in this Court. See United States v. Miller, 492 F. 2d 37, 40 (5th Cir.1974) (noting when Supreme Court vacates and remands case for reconsideration in light of one of its opinions, that action does not imply any particular result because “had [a particular result] been the [Supreme] Court’s desire, certiorari could have been granted and this case summarily reversed on the authority of [the opinion in light of which this Court was to reconsider the case], rather than being remanded for further consideration”).

In the absence of any requirement to the contrary in either Apprendi or in the order remanding this case to us, we apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned. Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F. 3d 950, 953 (11th Cir.1995) (“We note that issues that clearly are not designated in the initial brief ordinarily are considered abandoned.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Marek v. Singletary, 62 F. 3d 1295, 1298 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (“Issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned.”); Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F. 2d 1570, 1573 n. 6 (11th Cir.1989).

We have recently applied this rule to Apprendi issues. See United States v. Nealy, 232 F. 3d 825, 830 (11th Cir.2000) (“Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi ] indictment issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief.”).

Our opinion affirming the conviction and sentence, United States v. Ardley, 202 F. 3d 287, No. 98-7033 (11th Cir. Nov. 18, 1999), is REINSTATED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (33 total)

  • United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2005)
    …ely, or Booker issues. See United States v. Levy, 379 F. 3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir.2004) (declining to consider issue raised for the first time in petition for rehearing), reh’g en banc denied, 391 F. 3d 1327 (11th Cir.2004); United States v. Ardley, 242 F. 3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (stating that “we apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions hot timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned” (citation omitted)). . We note that this conclusion is consistent with those of at least two ot…
  • United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005)
    …l brief to this court, we apply the rule that parties cannot properly raise new issues at supplemental briefing, even if the issues arise based on intervening decisions or new developments cited in supplemental authority.”); United States v. Ardley, 242 F. 3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (refusing to consider, on remand from the Supreme Court, an issue arising under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (another Booker predecessor), not raised in the initial or reply b…
  • United States v. Raphael R. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004)
    …l brief to this court, we apply the rule that parties cannot properly raise new issues at supplemental briefing, even if the issues arise based on intervening decisions or new developments cited in supplemental authority.”); United States v. Ardley, 242 F. 3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (collecting cases) (“[W]e apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.”); United States v. Nealy, 232 F. 3d 825, 830 (11th Cir.2000) (“Defendant abandoned the…

Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw