United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 14, 2006

Before

Hon. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge

Hon. Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judge

Hon. Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeals from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

 ] the Northern District of

Nos. 04-1176, 04-1231 ] Illinois, Eastern 

 and 04-2009 v. ] Division.

 ]

ZACHARY JENKINS, KEVIN REED ] No. 02 CR 236

and ANTOINE HILL, ]

 Defendants-Appellants. ] Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.

O R D E R

We ordered a limited remand pursuant to United States v.

Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), to determine whether

the district court would have imposed the same sentences on

Kevin Reed, Antoine Hill and Zachary Jenkins had it understood

that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. In an order

dated December 15, 2005, the district judge determined that

she “would not have imposed a sentence of 360 months

imprisonment on either Kevin Reed or Antoine Hill.” In a

separate order issued the following day, the district judge

concluded that she would have imposed the same sentence on

Zachary Jenkins, finding that “[t]he Guideline sentence

reasonably takes into account his role as a supplier of drugs,

his background, the need for deterrence and punishment and the

other factors required to be considered under 18 U.S.C. sec.

3553.”

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
Nos. 04-1176, 04-1231 and 04-2009 Page 2

The parties were invited to file simultaneous memoranda

addressing the appropriate disposition of these appeals in

light of the district court’s determinations. Everyone except

Kevin Reed responded.

The government suggests that the sentences of Reed and

Hill should be vacated and their cases remanded to the

district court for resentencing as that court has requested,

and Hill concurs. We agree that this disposition is

appropriate.

Jenkins argues that the district judge’s explanation as

to his sentence is inadequate under United States v.

Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005), which precludes

affirming a district court’s sentence when the record does not

provide adequate assurance that the judge has given meaningful

consideration to the § 3553(a) factors. The government, on

the other hand, claims that the district judge properly

responded to our order. We agree that the district judge’s

response to our limited remand was terse, and that a fuller

explanation would have been desirable. But as we said in

United States v. Brock, No. 03-2279, slip op. at 14 (7th Cir.

January 9, 2006), “Although it is preferable that a district

court give a thorough explanation of its consideration of [the

§ 3553(a)] factors in its order on remand, this is not

mandated.” We are satisfied here that the district court

adequately considered Jenkins’ arguments and the relevant §

3553(a) factors from our review of the record and see no

reason why Jenkins’ sentence would be deemed unreasonable in

post-Booker practice. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the sentences of Reed and Hill are

VACATED and their cases are REMANDED to the district court for

resentencing, and that the sentence of Jenkins is AFFIRMED.