USA v. Lavan Maurice Walker, No. 04-11434 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ U.S. FILED COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUGUST 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 04-11434 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 03-20291-CR-DLG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LAVAN MAURICE WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (August 10, 2007) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: This case is before the court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). When this case was previously before us, we affirmed appellant s convictions on two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. United States v. Walker, 125 Fed.Appx. 977 (Table) (11th Cir. 2004). We now reinstate that decision. In appealing his convictions, appellant did not challenge his sentences. He attempted to do so after the case had been fully briefed, however, by filing a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief challenging his sentences in light of Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 1531 (2004). His motion was denied. Appellant contends that the Supreme Court s mandate, directing that we give further consideration to his appeal in light of Booker, requires that we review his sentences as if he had challenged them in a timely manner in United States v. Walker. We disagree. There is nothing in the Supreme Court s remand order that requires us to treat appellant s appeal as if he had challenged the constitutionality of his sentences under Booker. In the absence of such requirement, we apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are 2 deemed abandoned. United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005). See also, United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2000). OPINION REINSTATED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
