Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-24
Citations: 146 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 03-3716
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald E. BLAKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-3716.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2005.
Stephen B. Clark, Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division, Fair-view Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gareth G. Morris, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
After concluding that Ronald Blake's conviction should be affirmed, we ordered a limited remand so that the district judge could determine whether the sentence he imposed is appropriate, given that the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
On limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge concluded that he would have imposed a different sentence had he known that the federal sentencing guidelines were merely advisory.
Both parties were offered the opportunity to respond before we finally resolve the appeal; the defendant responded but the plaintiff responded late. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for re-sentencing.