Case ID: f-appx_163/html/0407-01.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. Leland B. HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Jan. 23, 2006.
    Scott James Campbell, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Leland Hall was sentenced for possessing a gun as a felon. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We ordered a limited remand, United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), and the district court said that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. That sentence was within a properly calculated guideline range and presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Hall has failed to make any argument that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 607. Because Hall has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence is reasonable, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.