Case Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon T. GANTT, Chad M. Carrico, Wilfredo Barrios, and Jose R. Vigil, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-23
Citations: 186 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: Nos. 03-2299, 03-3167, 03-3765, 04-1238
Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon T. GANTT, Chad M. Carrico, Wilfredo Barrios, and Jose R. Vigil, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deon T. GANTT, Chad M. Carrico, Wilfredo Barrios, and Jose R. Vigil, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 03-2299, 03-3167, 03-3765, 04-1238.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 23, 2006.
Bradley Blackington, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John A. Goodridge, Barbara Coyle Williams, Olsen, Labhart, White & Hambidge, Evansville, IN, Chad E. Groves, Wilson Womack & Groves, Henderson, KY, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We ordered a limited remand to ask whether the district judge, had he known the sentencing guidelines were advisory, would have imposed the same sentence on Deon Gantt, Chad Carrico, Wilfredo Barrios, and Jose Vigil. 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). He answered that he would.
We invited the parties to respond, and the defendants did in a consolidated manner. The defendants summarily ask us to revisit all of the issues previously raised in their appeals, which we will not do. The defendants also claim — without elaboration or support — that "the district court abused its discretion in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553." We will uphold sentences on Paladino remand if the district judge gave "meaningful consideration" to the statutory factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480 (7th Cir.2005). Here, the court issued a separate order for each defendant, and in each instance the district court reaffirmed its sentencing rationale. Because each of the sentences were within properly calculated guidelines ranges, they are presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). The defendants do not articulate a challenge to the reasonableness of their sentences, and we see no basis for error. The sentences are Affirmed.