Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-29
Citations: 233 F. App'x 582
Docket Number: No. 03-2891
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANTON, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-2891.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 29, 2007.
Julie B. Ruder, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Daniel Flores, Bradford, PA, pro se.
Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANTON, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Daniel Flores appealed his sentence of 175 months' imprisonment for distributing cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), contending, among other things, that the district court misapprehended its authority, post-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to depart from the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines. Because Flores failed to raise this argument before the district court and only plain error review was available, we ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), so the district court could state whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Rodriguez & Flores, Nos. 03-2523 & 03-2891, slip op. at 4 (7th Cir. July 15, 2006) (unpublished order). The district court since has replied in the affirmative; indeed, the fact that Flores's 175-month sentence falls below the properly calculated guidelines range of 188 to 235 months demonstrates the court's awareness that it was not bound by the guidelines. Flores has not filed with us a challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, and our independent review of the district court's order and the record uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Gama-Gonzalez, 469 F.3d 1109, 1110-11 (7th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.