Case ID: f-appx_412/html/0906-01.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. Scott NJOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-3016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2011.
    
    Decided March 17, 2011.
    Mark T. Earner, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.
    
      
      This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    
   Order

The sentence imposed following our remand of December 30, 2009, exceeds the Guideline range calculated by the district judge. Relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g)(2), defendant contends that the sentence therefore is invalid. In Pepper v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1243-46, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011), the Supreme Court concluded that § 3742(g)(2) violates the Constitution by setting limits on district judges’ sentencing discretion in the absence of findings made by a jury (or the judge in a bench trial), or a defendant’s waiver of his rights under the sixth amendment. This statute therefore is not a basis to upset the sentence that the district judge concluded is appropriate here. Because defendant does not contend that his sentence is unreasonable, apart from his reliance on § 3742(g)(2), the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.