                                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]


               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                              FILED
                         -------------------------------------------U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                      No. 03-13320                    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          APRIL 14, 2006
                                Non-Argument Calendar
                        -------------------------------------------- THOMAS K. KAHN
                                                                             CLERK

                        D.C. Docket No. 02-00431-CR-1-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                          versus

ROBBY O. JAMES,
a.k.a. Tony Johnson,

                                                         Defendant-Appellant.

              ----------------------------------------------------------------
                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Georgia
              ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                  (April 14, 2006)

                    ON REMAND FROM THE
              SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM:
      This case is before the Court for consideration in the light of United States

v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). We previously affirmed Appellant’s convictions

and sentences for conspiracy to commit access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371,

access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1029, and social security number fraud, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2, 42 U.S.C. § 408. See United States v. James, No. 03-13320 (11th Cir. Dec.

22, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated our prior decision and

remanded the case to us for further consideration in the light of Booker.

      In his initial brief on direct appeal, Appellant did not assert error based on

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), or any case extending or applying

the Apprendi principle. Appellant, however sought permission to file a

supplemental brief to present additional arguments about Blakely v. Washington,

124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). We denied Appellant’s motion.

      In United States v. Sears, 411 F.3d 1240, 1241 (11th Cir. 2005), a case with

a procedural history similar to this one, we wrote that Booker did not require us to

alter our prior decision because Sears did not raise a Booker issue in his initial

brief, he was denied leave to file a supplemental brief raising Booker, and nothing

in the Supreme Court’s remand order demanded a different conclusion. The same

reasoning applies in this case.




                                          2
      Appellant did not assert error based on Apprendi (or its progeny) in his

initial brief on appeal. We, thus, reinstate our previous opinion in this case and

affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences after our reconsideration in the light

of Booker, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate.

      OPINION REINSTATED; CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES

AFFIRMED.




                                          3
