Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-13
Citations: 162 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 04-2579
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 633–633

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-2579.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2006.
Elizabeth M. Blackwood, Office of the United States Attorney, United States Courthouse & Federal Building, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has limited the guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005).
The district judge has now replied that he would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the guidelines' advisory status. The range under the guidelines is 151 to 188 months, and Hudson's sentence of 151 months is the lowest possible guidelines sentence. Hudson has filed an argument concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court's response. He asserts that his acceptance of responsibility, lesser role in the offense, and positive conduct since sentencing make his 151-month sentence unreasonable. But a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumed reasonable, United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005), and we do not see any reason why Hudson's sentence would be deemed unreasonable in post-Booker practice. The judgment of the district court therefore is Affirmed.