Case ID: f-appx_170/html/0974-01.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. Pierre DAWSON and Alfonzo Ingram, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 04-2557, 04-2592.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    March 17, 2006.
    Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied May 9, 2006.
    
    George W. Jackson, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph A. Morris, Morris, Rathnau & Delarosa, Thomas A. Durkin, Durkin & Roberts, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams voted to grant the petitions for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing en banc.
      
    
   ORDER

On Paladino remand, the judge stated simply: “The issue before me is whether I would have imposed the same sentences on these defendants if I had known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. In this case I would have imposed the same sentences.” The sentences were guideline sentences and such sentences are, as we held in United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005), presumptively reasonable under the new regime of the Booker case. The defendants in the present case do not contend that the judge refused to consider or address any arguments they may have made for why the guidelines sentences imposed on them were unreasonable. Their only contention is that Mykytiuk is inconsistent with Booker and should be overruled. It is not inconsistent, and we shall not overrule it. The judgment is

Affirmed.