Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie DANTZLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-07
Citations: 169 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 03-2358
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie DANTZLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 996–997

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie DANTZLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-2358.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
March 7, 2006.
Richard H. Lloyd, Office of the United States Attorney Criminal Division, Fair-view Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appelle.
Robert A. Handelsman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, (7th Cir.2005), to ask the district court whether Willie Dantzler would have benefitted from the additional sentencing latitude provided by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court has responded that it would have imposed the same sentence. Dantzler, therefore, cannot show plain error. See Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.
We invited the parties to address the appropriate disposition of this appeal in light of the district court's response, but Dantzler has let the deadline pass without taking that opportunity. His sentence is within the 188- to 235-month guideline range and is therefore presumed reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Nothing in the record leads us to question that presumption. The judgment is AFFIRMED.