Case ID: f-appx_178/html/0572-01.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. Daniel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-2523.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    April 27, 2006.
    Julie B. Ruder, Office of The United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Jonathan E. Haw-ley, Johanna M. Christiansen, Office of The Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, and Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(205), 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621; United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge informed us that he would have imposed the same sentence on Daniel Rodriguez had he known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence was within the properly calculated guidelines range, it was presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Rodriguez filed no response to rebut that presumption and our independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED.