ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

This case is before the Court for consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We previously affirmed Garcia-Rodriguez’ and Toroguet-Cervantes’ convictions and sentences. See United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 97 Fed.Appx. 904 (11th Cir. 2004) (unpublished). The *522 Supreme Court vacated our prior decision and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Booker.

On appeal, neither Garcia-Rodriguez or Toroguet-Cervantes asserted error based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), or any other case extending or applying the Apprendi principle.

In United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005), after the Supreme Court’s remand with instructions to reconsider our opinion in light of Booker, we relied on our earlier case of United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 962, 121 S.Ct. 2621, 150 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001), which observed:

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. 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.

Ardley, 242 F.3d at 990 (citations omitted). Thus, because Dockery had not asserted an Apprendi (or its progeny) challenge to his sentence, we reinstated our previous opinion. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005).

Because neither Garcia-Rodriguez or Toroguet-Cervantes asserted error based on Apprendi (or its progeny) in their appeals, we reinstate our previous opinion this case and affirm, once again, Garcia-Rodriguez’ and Toroguet-Cervantes’ convictions and sentences after our reconsideration in light of Booker, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate.

OPINION REINSTATED IN PART; AFFIRMED.