PER CURIAM: The panel in this case issued an Order on August 10, 2004, published in 380 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2004), denying Curtis' motion to file a supplemental brief to assert for the first time a challenge to his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). In an alternative holding, footnote two of that Order noted that Curtis had not only failed to raise the Blakely issue in a timely manner on appeal, but had also failed to raise the issue in the district court or at sentencing.
Accordingly, he is not entitled to have this Court entertain the argument with respect to those other two enhancements. 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."); 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. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 2004 WL 1774785 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2004) (order declining to permit a supplemental brief raising a Blakely issue for the first time, following Nealy and Ford). Moreover, even in his supplemental brief Duncan focuses on the drug type finding, barely mentioning the other two enhancements, and even that mention is both conclusory and vague.
Accordingly, we deem any Fifth Amendment argument abandoned. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir.2004). Even if the issue is not abandoned, we note the indictment cited the correct statutory provision, which was likely sufficient.
But we will not address arguments not made in an appellant's initial brief. United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). Nor will we develop on our own issues that a party mentions only in passing.
Because Clayton does not challenge this conclusion on appeal, he has waived the argument. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). The record shows that Clayton conferred with his lawyer many times during his plea hearing before answering the district court's questions and eventually pleading guilty.
.See also United States v. Njau, 386 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (11th Cir. 2004) (refusing to consider a Blakely claim first raised in a letter submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 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). The panel's decision in this case is problematic for four reasons.
Conkright arguably has waived any potential argument that his sentence was unreasonable by failing to argue its reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). As we explain above, however, Conkright's challenge fails on the merits.
A party also abandons an issue by raising it for the first time in his reply brief. United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Here, Hood has abandoned his argument regarding the discrepancies between the district court's oral and written orders by raising it for the first time in his reply brief.
Issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived. United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). We therefore do not address Cooney's argument.
We do not address that argument, however, because he did not raise it in his initial brief. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). I.