Case ID: f-appx_142/html/0924-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-3522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Aug. 26, 2005.
    Victoria J. Peters, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Robert A. Handelsman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before POSNER, MANION, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Noe Vasquez challenged his sentence of 121 months’ imprisonment in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), contending that the district court committed plain error in its application of the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. Based on United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.2005), we issued a limited remand to the Northern District of Illinois to determine whether it would impose the same sentence now that the Guidelines are no longer mandatory.

The district court has responded that it would again impose the identical sentence of 121 months on Vasquez post -Booker. Since Vasquez’s sentence would remain the same, the Booker error did not affect Vasquez’s substantial rights, and Vasquez cannot show plain error. See id. at 484. We will therefore affirm as long as the sentence is reasonable. See id.

We invited the parties to file arguments regarding the appropriate disposition in light of the district court’s decision. Vasquez responded that he saw no basis to argue that the district court abused its discretion in reimposing the sentence. As the sentence falls within the applicable Guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.2005). Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s original sentence.