Case ID: f-appx_162/html/0633-01.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. Michael HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-2579.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Jan. 13, 2006.
    Elizabeth M. Blackwood, Office of the United States Attorney, United States Courthouse & Federal Building, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, 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 guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005).

The district judge has now replied that he would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the guidelines’ advisory status. The range under the guidelines is 151 to 188 months, and Hudson’s sentence of 151 months is the lowest possible guidelines sentence. Hudson has filed an argument concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court’s response. He asserts that his acceptance of responsibility, lesser role in the offense, and positive conduct since sentencing make his 151-month sentence unreasonable. But a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumed reasonable, United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005), and we do not see any reason why Hudson’s sentence would be deemed unreasonable in post-Booker practice. The judgment of the district court therefore is Affirmed.