Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0072-01.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. Malcolm C. GOUGIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    April 5, 2006.
    Barry Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Kent V. Anderson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has limited the Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005). The district judge has now replied that she would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the guidelines’ advisory status.

Gougis’s sentence of 60 months was near the upper end of the advisory guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. Gougis did not respond to our invitation to file a response in this court to the district court’s Paladino remand statement. The government in its response points out the district judge considered Gougis’s employment, education, and family history, military service, and mental health and drug abuse problems.

We do not see any reason why Gougis’s sentence would be deemed unreasonable in post -Booker practice. The judgment of the district court therefore is AFFIRMED.