## I n t he



# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

F o r th e S e v e n th C ircu it

____________ N o. 05

- 3681 U NI T ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R I CA R DO R O M ERO , D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ A pp eal fro m the United S t ates Di stric tC ou rt fo r the Western Di stric tof Wi sc ons in. No . 04 C R 164— Barbar a B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge .

____________ O n Rem and fr om the S uprem e Cour to fthe U ni t ed St at es

____________ S UB MI T T ED F EBRU ARY 29, 2 0 0 8 —D EC I DE D J UNE 6, 2008

____________ Befo re F LA UM , K ANN E , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , C i r cu i t Judg e . The S up re m e Cour tgr ant ed R ica rd o Rom ero’s petit ion for w ritof certio rari, v a c a t ed o ur j udg m en t , a nd remande d the c as e t o us f o r r ec o ns ideration i n li gh t of K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. C t. 558 ( 2007 )
. Rom er o w as sent enced t o 151 m onths’ i m pri sonm entaft er a juryf ound him gui l t y o fo ne co unt of c on sp irin g to d istrib u te c oc ain e, see 21 U
. S. C
. §§ 841(a)(1) , 846, o ne co unt ofposs ess i ng fi ve gr am s o r m or e o fco -2 N o. 05

- 3681 cai ne bas e with i nt entt o dist rib u te, see i d. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , a nd one counto fposs ess i ng co cai ne with i nt entt o dist ribut e, se e id . A t sen ten c in g, R om er o u rg ed the d istric t cou rt to re f ra i n f ro m ap ply i ng the 100- t o- 1 crackcocai ne t o pow der coca i ne ra t i o f ound i n § 2D1. 1 of the Se nt enci ng G u i del i ne s, w hi ch sub j ec t s a cr ac k

- co ca i ne dr ugt r aff i ck er “ t o the sam e s ent ence as one deal i ng i n 1 00 t i m es m or e powd er c oca i ne. ” Kim b r ough , 128 S. Ct. at564. T he distri ct court applied the r at i o and sent enced Rom er o t o 151 m onths’ im p ris on m en t. On a ppea l , Ro m er o c ha l l enged the s uf f i ci en cyo fthe evi dence att ri al , the di st ri ctco urt ’ s r efusal to all ow cro ssex ami na ti o n o fo ne wi tne ss r eg ar di nga pr i o r i nc o nsi st entst ate m ent , and the di st ri ctco urt ’ s a pp l i cat i on o f the 10 0- t o- 1 r at i o. W e a f f i rm ed
. SeeU ni t e d S t at e s v. R o m ero , 46 9 F
. 3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 5 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e S u p r e me C ou rtgranted Rom ero’s petit ion for ce rt iorar i i n l i ghto f Kim b r ough , and v acat ed the j ud gm ent
. Because Kim b r ough aff ect s o nl y o ne o fthe three arg u m ent s Rom er o ra i sed o n a pp e a l , o ur di s po s i t i o ns o f the o the r i s s ue s a r e r e i ns t a t e d, id. at1 15 1- 53 , a nd o ur a f f i r m an ce o fRa ul Ro m er o ’ s se ntence r em ains i ntact ( R icard o’s co-defen d an t an d brothe r), i d. a t 1 1 48 -49
. See O hse v . H ug hes , 863 F.2d 22 , 24 (7 th C i r . 198 8) (“ T h e C ou rt’s d ec isio n in O hs e v. H ughes is r ei ns t at ed ex ce ptf o r the fi na l s ec ti o n o fthe Co ur t ’ s o pi ni on wh i ch i s desi gnat ed “M i scel l aneous. ” The s ect i on d es ign ate d “M isc ella n eo u s” r em ain s v ac ate d p u rs u an t t o the Sup re m e C ourt ’ s m em or andu m deci si on . . . . ” ( i nt er nal cit ati ons om it ted)). W hen the dist ri ctcourtsent enced R om er o i n Se pte m ber 2005 , we had al re ady hel d thatdef endants w er e no t “ent i tled t o a devi at i on fro m the st at ut or y r at i o. ” U nited Sta tes v. M iller , 4 50 F
. 3d 27 0, 2 75 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( r ec i t i ngtheN o. 05

- 3681 3 hold ing of U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gips on , 4 2 5 F.3d 335 (7th C ir. 2005 ) )
. I n Rom er o’ s appeal , w e expla i ned that a “ ‘ dist ri ct j u d ge is re q u ire d to ab id e b y th e 1 00 :1 c ra c k c oc ain e to co ca i ne po wder r at i o when a ppl ying the S en t en ci ng Gu i del i nes t o a def endant’ s co nd uct
. ’ ” R o m ero , 4 69 F. 3d at 1153 ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hankt on , 4 6 3 F
. 3 d 6 26, 62 9 (7 th C ir. 20 06 )). O u r sta n c e w as rejec ted in Ki m b r ough , i n w hi ch the S up re m e C ourthel d thatthe co cai ne gui deli ne s are like all other s en tencing gu idelines an d thu s “are advi sor y o nl y. ” 1 28 S. Ct
. at56 4. B ecause Rom er o prese rv ed hi s chal l enge t o the cr ackco ca i ne r at i o , w e m ays i m pl y v ac at e hi s se nt en ce a nd re m an d to th e d istric t co u r t for res en ten c in g. See U nited S ta te s v. P adilla , No. 0 6- 43 70 , s l i p o p. a t1 2- 16 ( 7th Cir. M ar. 31, 2008); b ut c

f
. U ni t e d Sta tes v. Tayl or , N o. 06

- 4123 , sl i p o p. a t4

- 6 ( 7th C ir. M ar . 2 6, 2 00 8) ( o ut l i ni ngr emand approach appli cabl e i n pla i n er ro r cont ext )
. Th e d i st ri ct c ou rtm ustr ese nt ence Rom er o i n l i ghto fthe non- m andatory n atu re of the 10 0-to -1 ra tio. Se e K im bro ugh , 128 S. C t. at5 64
. Ev en tho ug h we ar e va ca t i ngthe s en t en ce a nd Rom er o w i l l be s en tenced anew , the di st ri ctco urtm ust apply the gui del i nes a s they exi st ed atthe t i m e o fhi s fi rs t s e nt e nc i ng, see 18 U
. S. C. § 3 742( g) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sr i ram , 48 2 F .3d 95 6, 96 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), va c a ted , Srira m v. U nited Sta tes , 1 2 8 S . C t. 11 34 , 113 4 (2 00 8), reinsta ted , U nited Sta tes v. Sriram , Nos
. 0 5- 27 52 & 05

- 28 02 , s l i p o p. a t2 ( 7th Cir. A p r. 23, 2008 ). Bu t this ti m e aroun d , t h e d ist rictcou rt w il l view thos e guid eli ne s throu gh the l en s of Kim b r ough
. Rom er o’ s s ent ence i s V ACATED and the ca se i s R EMAND ED t o the di st ri ctco urtf or r ese nt enci ng.

USCA- 02- C- 0072

— 6- 6- 08