Case ID: f-appx_157/html/0911-01.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. Joseph W. SALADINO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1831.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2005.
    Ronald Dewald, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Allan A. Ackerman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before EASTERBROOK, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Joseph Saladino challenged his sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), contending that the district court committed plain error in its application of the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. Based on United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.2005), we issued a limited remand to the Northern District of Illinois to determine whether it would impose the same sentence now that the guidelines are no longer mandatory.

The district court has responded that it would again impose the identical sentence of 27 months on Saladino post-Booker. Since Saladino’s sentence would remain the same, the Booker error did not affect Saladino’s substantial rights, and Saladino cannot show plain error. See id. at 484. We will therefore affirm as long as the sentence is reasonable. See id.

We invited the parties to file arguments regarding the appropriate disposition in light of the district court’s decision. Saladino never responded to our invitation. As the sentence falls within the applicable guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s original sentence.