This case is before the court for consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). 1 We previously affirmed Darbouze’s conviction and sentence. See United States v. Darbouze, No. 03-13334 (11th Cir., March 23, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated our prior decisión and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Booker.

After remand, we directed the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs providing the court with: (1) a detailed description of where, when, and how the Booker issue was first raised; and (2) any arguments about whether and how the Booker decision applies to this case and what action this court should take in the case, including an analysis of the plain error doctrine.

After reading the parties’ supplemental briefs, we reinstate our previous opinion in this case in part and affirm Darbouze’s conviction. However, we remand the case to the district court for re-sentencing. The district court stated in its March 16, 2005, order on Darbouze’s motion for new trial that it would re-sentence Darbouze because of a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), violation that affected his sentence. On remand, the district court should re-sentence Darbouze in accord with the Booker procedures. In light of our remand, we decline to reach any Booker issues arising from the original sentence.

Accordingly, we vacate Darbouze’s sentence and remand this case to the district court to resentence Darbouze consistent with this opinion.

OPINION REINSTATED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART, and VACATED and REMANDED IN PART.