Case ID: f-appx_187/html/0646-01.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. Dana WARMUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-4111.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2006.
    
    Decided July 21, 2006.
    Monika Bickert, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Terence F. MacCarthy, Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

Dana Warmuz pleaded guilty to embezzlement, see 18 U.S.C. § 656, and was sentenced under the advisory sentencing guidelines to 24 months in prison. Now she argues that her sentence violates ex post facto principles of due process because the district court would have been required to impose a lower sentence under the mandatory guidelines regime that was in place when she committed her crime.

As Warmuz acknowledges, we have already decided that no due process violation arises from retroactively applying the advisory regime created by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 698-99 (7th Cir.2005) ; United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538, 539 (7th Cir.2005). Nonetheless, Warmuz asks us to change the rule. In a number of recent cases, however, we have already rejected the arguments she offers for overruling our precedent. E.g., United States v. Sliman, 449 F.3d 797, 801 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Farris, 448 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir.2006).

Indeed, we are especially confident of our views when we consider that every other circuit agrees with us. See United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107, 110-12 (1st Cir.2005); United States v. Fairclough, 439 F.3d 76, 78-79 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2915, 165 L.Ed.2d 937 (2006); United States v. Pennavaria, 445 F.3d 720, 723-24 (3d Cir.2006); United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 369-70 (4th Cir.2006); United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam); United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 555 (6th Cir.2006) ; United States v. Wade, 435 F.3d 829, 832 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam); United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1484, 164 L.Ed.2d 261 (2006); United States v. Rines, 419 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (10th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1089, 163 L.Ed.2d 905 (2006); United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 432, 163 L.Ed.2d 329 (2005); United States v. Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d 331, 343 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.