Case ID: f-appx_184/html/0546-01.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. Daniel ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-2584.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    June 7, 2006.
    Amanda A. Robertson, Office of the United States Attorney, Benton, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter M. Cohen, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge informed us that he would have imposed the same sentence on Daniel Ross had he known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Ross now contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to promote respect for the law and because his time incarcerated will leave him inadequately educated and vocationally unprepared. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But neither these arguments nor our independent review suggest unreasonableness, and therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED.