Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0996-01.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. Willie DANTZLER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-2358.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    March 7, 2006.
    
      Richard H. Lloyd, Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division, Fair-view Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appelle.
    Robert A. Handelsman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

We ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, (7th Cir.2005), to ask the district court whether Willie Dantzler would have benefitted from the additional sentencing latitude provided by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court has responded that it would have imposed the same sentence. Dantzler, therefore, cannot show plain error. See Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.

We invited the parties to address the appropriate disposition of this appeal in light of the district court’s response, but Dantzler has let the deadline pass without taking that opportunity. His sentence is within the 188- to 235-month guideline range and is therefore presumed reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Nothing in the record leads us to question that presumption. The judgment is AFFIRMED.