Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lavar HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-30
Citations: 186 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 04-1786
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lavar HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lavar HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-1786.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 30, 2006.
Christina Egan, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Patrick W. Blegen, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Lavar Harris had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Harris contends that Mykytiuk was wrongly decided, but does not identify any basis under the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to question the reasonableness of his sentence. Our independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED.