Case ID: br_397/html/0954-01.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, Cross-Appellant, v. Deborah Ahmad BEY, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
    Nos. 06-3522, 06-3896.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted June 20, 2008.
    Decided Aug. 25, 2008.
    Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 15, 2008.
    John F. Podliska, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
    Deborah A. Ahmad Bey, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge and MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER

In an unpublished order, we held that Deborah Ahmad Bey’s three-month sentence of imprisonment for making false statements in her bankruptcy jury trial was unreasonably short, and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Ahmad Bey, 244 Fed.Appx. 57, 58 (7th Cir.2007). The Supreme Court granted Bey’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). See Bey v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2089, 170 L.Ed.2d 814 (2008). In Gall, the Supreme Court held that appellate courts may not presume sentences outside the guidelines range are unreasonable, and that we may not use a rigid formula for determining whether an out-of-guidelines sentence is justified. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 594-95, 597. But we did not use either of those approaches prior to Gall. See United States v. McIlrath, 512 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir.2008). Nor did we apply either approach previously in resolving this case. Our earlier analysis is therefore unaffected by Gall, and our earlier order that the district judge resentence the defendant remains correct.