1

 Aishauna Ward, Mr. Ward’s wife and co-defendant was sentenced to 184

months imprisonment for her conviction on the same charges. Following a limited

(continued...)

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 30, 2006

Before

Hon. Joel M. Flaum, Chief Judge

Hon. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

Hon. Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge

No. 03-2999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREGORY WARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

No. 01 CR 927 - 2 

David H. Coar, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Defendant-appellant Gregory Ward was convicted of conspiracy to rob the bank

at which his wife, Aishauna Ward, worked (Count I); using force, violence or

intimidation to rob a bank (Count II); and using, carrying or brandishing a firearm

during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence (Count III). The

district court sentenced Mr. Ward to concurrent sentences totaling 78 months on

Counts I and II, to run consecutively with a mandatory sentence of 84 months on

Count III, resulting in a total sentence of 162 months imprisonment.1

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 03-2999 Page 2

1

(...continued)

Paladino remand, this Court upheld Ms. Ward’s original sentence.

On March 4, 2005, we ordered a limited remand to the district court pursuant to

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

court would have imposed the same sentence had it understood that the guidelines

were advisory. After considering the briefs of both parties as well as the factors in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court indicated that it would have imposed the

same sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. 

The defendant did not submit a position paper before the district court and has

not submitted a response to this Court as invited in our January 12, 2006, Order. 

The government presented a position paper before the district court and has

submitted a response before this Court. The government asks this Court to affirm

the district court’s decision to impose the same sentence under the current advisory

sentencing guideline structure as it did when the guidelines were believed to be

mandatory.

Even though United States v. Booker made the guidelines advisory, judges must

still consider the sentencing range established by the guidelines in addition to other

relevant factors. See 125 S. Ct. 738, 764 (2005); see also United States v. Baretz,

411 F.3d 867, 877 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have said that obedience to the Supreme

Court’s mandate in Booker requires that the district court first calculate the correct

guideline sentence so that that calculation can serve as a meaningful guide in the

district court’s imposition of a final sentence.”). 

The sentence imposed was within the guidelines range, and the district court

was not obligated to provide this Court with a detailed explanation of its

consideration of each of the relevant factors. See United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d

725, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2005) (judge’s duty to consider the statutory factors is not a

duty to make explicit findings on each factor); United States v. George, 403 F.3d

470, 472-73 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Judges need not rehearse on the record all of the

considerations that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) lists; it is enough to calculate the range

accurately and explain why (if the sentence lies outside it) this defendant deserves

more or less.”). 

The sole remaining inquiry is whether defendant’s sentence is reasonable. See

Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484 (if the district court indicates that it would reimpose the

original sentence, we will affirm the sentence against a plain-error challenge

provided that the sentence is reasonable). Any sentence that is properly calculated

under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. 

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Mr. Ward can rebut

this presumption only by demonstrating that his sentence is unreasonable when
No. 03-2999 Page 3

measured against the factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. He has not attempted to do

so. 

Mr. Ward’s sentence of 78 months was at the low end of the Guidelines range 

(78 to 97 months) and the district court imposed the mandatory consecutive

sentence of 84 months on the § 924(c) charge. Mr. Ward’s sentence was

considerably less than his wife’s. The record contains no reason to believe that the

sentence was unreasonable. Mr. and Ms. Ward used Aishauna Ward’s insider

knowledge of the bank to plan their robbery. Mr. Ward entered the bank armed

with a gun and while he held another teller hostage, Ms. Ward emptied the bank

vault. Mr. And Ms. Ward avoided detection for several days, and much of the stolen

money was never recovered. The sentence imposed by the district court accounted

for the loss amount, hostage-taking, and brandishing of a firearm. The district

court took full consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a

reasonable sentence.

Because the district court would have imposed the same sentence post-Booker

and because that sentence is reasonable, we conclude that Mr. Ward’s sentence was

not the result of plain error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district

court.