Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0851-01.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. Ronald E. BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-3716.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2005.
    
      Stephen B. Clark, Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division, Fair-view Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gareth G. Morris, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

After concluding that Ronald Blake’s conviction should be affirmed, we ordered a limited remand so that the district judge could determine whether the sentence he imposed is appropriate, given that the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

On limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge concluded that he would have imposed a different sentence had he known that the federal sentencing guidelines were merely advisory.

Both parties were offered the opportunity to respond before we finally resolve the appeal; the defendant responded but the plaintiff responded late. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for re-sentencing.