green
Positive treatment
Trending · 123 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
53.9 score
“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.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Barry Leon Ardley
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
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.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ardley
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Chester Risco
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert B. Sperrazza
(2×)
Because we are not obligated to determine sua sponte whether counts four and five of the indictment are multiplici-tous, we will 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). 6 c.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wayne Durham
See, e.g., Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.2012); United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1263 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 , 830-31 (11th Cir.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thor Hansen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We maintain a “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) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manhattan Construction Company v. Place Properties LP
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001). 3 Case: 12-15626 Date Filed: 03/17/2014 Page: 4 of 5 Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 402 , 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2459 , 110 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manhattan Construction Company v. Place Properties LP
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001). 3 Case: 12-15626 Date Filed: 03/17/2014 Page: 4 of 5 Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 402 , 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2459 , 110 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manhattan Construction Company v. Place Properties LP
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taurus Geter v. United States
P. 28(j)); United States v. Hembree, 381 F.3d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir.2004) (denying a motion to file a substitute or amended principal brief raising a Blakely claim); United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310-11 (11th Cir.2004) (denying a motion to file a supplemental brief raising a Blakely claim), modified on other grounds, 400 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Padilla-Reyes, 247 F.3d 1158, 1164 (11th Cir.2001) (“[BJecause Padilla did not raise this issue in his initial brief to this court, we apply the rule that parties cannot properly raise new issues at supplemental briefing,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kelly Brenton Farley
Farley does not address the district court’s determination that he was legally arrested, so he has abandoned any argument that he was not.24 See United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Brenton-Farley
Farley does not address the district court’s determination that he was legally arrested, so he has abandoned any argument that he was not. 24 See United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cliff Leonard Meryl
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Stratton
Cf. United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (applying well-established rule that issues not timely raised in the initial briefs are deemed abandoned in case remanded after Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)); United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (applying Ardley reasoning to Booker remand case).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donna J. Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster
See Irving v. Mazda Motor Corp., 136 F.3d 764 , 769 (11th Cir.1998) (“Because Plaintiff failed to make this argument in the district court, we decline to consider it here.”); Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489 , 1511 n. 30 (11th Cir.1996) (This Court “will not address claims or arguments not fairly presented to the district court.”); United States v. Ford, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir.2001) (“[O]ur well established rule is that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.”); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lamont Wendel Smith
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. DeCarlo
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Christopher Pierre Hicks
Hicks and Calloway both concede that they raised no Booker/Blakely/Apprendi issue in their initial appeal. 1 We follow the well-established prudential 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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jerry Joseph Higdon, Jr.
In United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001), we applied this rule to a case remanded from the Supreme Court in light of Apprendi.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elevester Trotter
(2×)
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).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Shirley E. Moncrief
(2×)
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).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sapp
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Anthony Johnson
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Maureen Gray
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that “Booker itself recognized that retroactivity is subject to ordinary prudential rules, and thus nothing in Booker undermines or affects our prudential rules; if anything, Booker contemplates that they should be applied in Booker-remand cases”); United States v. Vanorden, 414 F.3d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Because Vanorden did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment-Apprendi-Blakely-Booker grounds in his first trip through this circuit, this argument is ‘deemed abandoned.’”); United States v. P…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Antonio Garcia
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1262–63; see also United States v. Levy, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 1620719 (11th Cir. July 12, 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Pipkins, 412 F.3d 1251, 1251 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. David Franklin Cotney, Jr.
Ardley, 242 F.3d at 990 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dieuseul Meilleur
Ardley, 242 F.3d at 990 (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gregory Wade Hembree
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 , 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luis Adel Bordon
(2×)
However, the Defendants' Booker claim was not timely raised in their initial brief on appeal and is thus subject to this Court’s prudential rule as articulated in United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir.2004), reh’g en banc denied, 391 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir.2004), vacated by-U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2542 , 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2005), reinstated by 416 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.2005); and United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Angelo J. Giordano
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carlos David Herrera
In United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262 (11th Cir.2005), we concluded that “ ‘our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned,’ ” (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001)) applies to Booker error; an appellant who fails to raise a Booker ¡Apprendi issue in his initial brief has abandoned that error on appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Leroy Coaxum
Ed. 2d 621 (2005) and holding appellant abandoned challenge to his sentence because he did not raise the issue in his initial brief on appeal) (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Sears, __F.3d__, No. 03-16550, 2005 WL 1334892, at *1 (11th Cir. June 8, 2005) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Samuel Alan Morton
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clyde J. Dixon
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244-45 (11th Cir.2004), judgment vacated by, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2542 , 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2005), judgment reinstated by, United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273 , 1280 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 991 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 , 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 , 830 (11th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1023 , 122 S.Ct. 552 , 151 L.Ed.2d 428 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jimmie Lee Byrd
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 , 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Siegfried Douglas McGhee
United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (stating after a remand from the Supreme Court that “we apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs [prior to Supreme Court remand] are deemed abandoned”); United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262 (11th Cir.2005) (declining to consider Booker where it was not raised in appellant’s initial brief, notwithstanding Supreme Court remand for consideration in light of Booker).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bryan Winfred Smith
Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435 , 1446 n. 16 (11th Cir.1987)); United States v. Whitesell, 314 F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir.2002) (same); Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir.2001) (denying motion to file supplemental brief seeking to raise a new issue not covered in appellant’s initial brief); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (stating after a remand from the Supreme Court that “we apply our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs [prior to Supreme Court remand] are deemed abandoned” and declining to cons…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Craig Cesal
See United States v. Vanorden, __ F.3d __, No. 03-11083, 2005 WL 1531151 (11th Cir. June 30, 2005); United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261 , 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Raphael R. Levy
See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 , 830-31 (11th Cir.2000); McGinnis v. Ingram Equip.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerald Padmore
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Constantino Duarte-Benitez
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cederick Deon Swasey
United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (considering the case in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and holding appellant abandoned challenge to his sentence because he did not raise the issue in his initial brief on appeal) (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001)); see also United States v. Sears, 411 F.3d 1240, 1241 (11th Cir.2005) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Oscar Cardona
Id. at 990 (internal citations and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Cecilio Nunez
It was not a constitutional challenge. 3 Id. at 990 (internal citations and citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gadier F. Nazario
Id. at 1262-63 (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 , 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Luis Morales
This Court has recently reaffirmed its “ ‘well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned.’ ” United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Decarlos Antjuan Mitchell
Id. (quoting United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962 , 121 S.Ct. 2621 , 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charles Mosley
In United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989, 990 (11th Cir.2001), we applied this rule to a case remanded from the Supreme Court in light of Apprendi.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Silvestri
P. 28(j)); United States v. Hembree, 381 F.3d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir.2004) (denying a motion to file a substitute or amended principal brief raising a Blakely claim); United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310-11 (11th Cir.2004), modified on other grounds, 400 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.2005) (denying a motion to file a supplemental brief raising a Blakely claim); United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242-43 (11th Cir.2004) (refusing to consider a Blakely claim first raised in a petition for rehearing); United States v. Padilla-Reyes, 247 F.3d 1158, 1164 (11th Cir.2001) ("[Bjecause Padilla did not r…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jennifer Leeann Lytle
Ardley, 242 F.3d at 990 (citations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Barry Leon ARDLEY, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Barry Leon ARDLEY, Defendant-Appellant
98-7033.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Feb 20, 2001.
Alexander Bunin, Christopher Knight, Federal Defenders Organization, Inc., Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant., Charles A. Kandt, Mobile, Al, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carnes, Marcus, Cox.
Cited by 135 opinions | Published
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges. 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.