
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andre Marselles CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-20088
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 29, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Katherine Scardino, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Andre Marselles Carter appeals his sentence for aiding and abetting a bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and 2, and aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) and 2. Carter contends that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level five levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), for Rodney Lee Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm during a July 11, 2003, bank robbery, insisting that there was inadequate proof that Thompson brandished an actual firearm. As Carter did not preserve this issue at the district court level, plain error review applies. United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir.2005). We determined previously that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Thompson brandished a firearm. United States v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 465 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 602, 166 L.Ed.2d 447 (2006). That determination is the law of the case, so it precludes reconsideration of the issue. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 653 (5th Cir.2002).

Carter also contends that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level five levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), for Thompson’s brandishing of a firearm during the July 11, 2003, bank robbery, insisting that it was not foreseeable to Carter that Thompson would brandish a firearm. The application of the five-level enhancement is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Carter has failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in its finding that Thompson’s brandishment of the firearm during the July 11, 2003 robbery was reasonably foreseeable to Carter.

Finally, Carter asserts that the two-level restraint adjustment on Count Three was inappropriate, but does not provide any support for this contention. As Carter has failed to brief the issue adequately, we shall not consider it. See United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1505, 167 L.Ed.2d 243 (2007)(stating that inadequately briefed issues on appeal are abandoned).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     