Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leland B. HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-23
Citations: 163 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 03-4047
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leland B. HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leland B. HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4047.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 23, 2006.
Scott James Campbell, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Leland Hall was sentenced for possessing a gun as a felon. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We ordered a limited remand, United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), and the district court said that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. That sentence was within a properly calculated guideline range and presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Hall has failed to make any argument that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 607. Because Hall has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence is reasonable, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.