of the evidence that was erroneously admitted, it is impossible for us to say with any degree of confidence that the error did not substantially influence the jury’s decision. VI. For the foregoing reasons, Matthews’s convictions are REVERSED. 1 . Matthews belatedly sought to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Briefing in this case was completed before Blakely was decided, but a little more than four months before oral argument Matthews sought permission to file a supplemental brief challenging the constitutionality of his guideline sentence in light of Blakely. That motion was denied, as required by circuit precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Levy, 391 F.3d 1327,
recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to consider issues not raised in the parties briefs holding that blakely did not apply to a case that was final but not on direct review when blakely was decided and in which the trial court later allowed a belated appeal holding blakely not retroactive holding that issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned holding that we will not permit supplemental briefs raising blakely claims that were not advanced in defendants preblakely initial briefs notwithstanding the fact that such claims were squarely foreclosed by circuit precedent prior to blakely