Case ID: f-appx_182/html/0560-01.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. Michael J. MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    May 30, 2006.
    Joel Hammerman, Office Of The United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Jonathan E. Hawley, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

On August 25, 2005, we affirmed the district court’s calculation of Michael Murphy’s sentence, but ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), directing the sentencing judge to consider whether he would impose the same sentence if he had known the guidelines were advisory. The district court judge examined the record along with statements submitted by counsel, and concluded that he would have reimposed the original sentence. Noting the many victims Murphy defrauded for large sums and the irreparable harm he caused, the district court cited to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), and concluded that his “365-month sentence properly ‘reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law and provides just punishment for the offense.”

Both parties submitted arguments on the appropriate disposition of this appeal in light of the district court’s decision. We have considered those submissions and affirm because we conclude that Murphy’s sentence was reasonable.

AFFIRMED.