U.S. v. Ardley, 98-7033
| Citation | 242 F.3d 989 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-7033,Docket No. 97-00251-CR-1,98-7033 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARRY LEON ARDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. D. C |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
We have previously affirmed the conviction and sentence in this case. See United States v. Ardley, 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, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (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) ().
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) () (quotation marks and citation omitted); Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary v. Schofield
...abandoned and will not be addressed further by the Court. See Isaacs v. Head, 300 F.3d 1232, 1253 (11th Cir.2002); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir.2001). 11. Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on February 2, 1998, which was after the effect......
-
U.S. v. Silvestri
...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, 4......
-
U.S. v. Higdon
...a case in which the "new rule" was not announced until after that brief was filed. Levy, 379 F.3d at 1242. This rule dates to United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, reh'g en banc denied, 273 F.3d 991 (11th Cir.2001), which refused to consider a defendant's Apprendi-based challenge even thou......
-
U.S. v. Levy
...Levy, 379 F.3d at 1244. The dissent concedes that: (1) the Levy panel was bound by circuit precedent, see United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (collecting cases); and (2) this Court recently denied en banc review of the very question in this case; that is, whether the ......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Rosemary T. Cakmis and Fritz Scheller
...United States v. Wims, 245 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2001); United ......
-
Role of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the Wake of U.s. v. Booker and U.s. v. Fanfan - Rosemary T. Cakmis
...In Ardley the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel had held, in United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 2001), that, despite a remand from the Supreme Court for consideration of an Apprendi claim raised for the first time in a petiti......
-
Constitutional Civil Rights - John Sanchez
...provides that "no state shall. . . passany . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . ." U.S. Const, art. i, Sec. 10. 113. . 242 F.3d at 989. 114. . Id. 115. . Id. 116. . 238 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2001). 117. . Id. at 1275. 118. . Id. 119. . Id. 120. . Id. at 1275-76. 121. . Id. a......