Case ID: f-appx_172/html/0116-01.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. Mamoun Ali ARMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-2142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Feb. 28, 2006.
    Michelle N. Weiss, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Frederick F. Cohn, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, 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 with specificity that she would not have imposed the same sentence on Arman at the time of his original sentencing had she known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory and not binding. The defendant did not respond to our invitation to file an argument concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court’s response; however, the United States agrees that the sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Accordingly, we VACATE Arman’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing.