Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-13
Citations: 420 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 10-1304
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-1304.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
July 13, 2011.
Frank E. Schaffer, Office of the United States Attorney, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew J. McGowan, Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Lawrence Taylor pleaded guilty to bank robbery in 2009, which subjected him to sentences both for the instant robbery, and for violating his supervised release in connection with a prior bank robbery. We ordered a limited remand because the district court did not clearly appreciate or exercise its discretion in making Taylor's two sentences consecutive instead of concurrent. The district court has responded, clarifying that it did understand at the time of sentencing that it could make the sentences concurrent or consecutive, and enumerating several convincing reasons for imposing the sentences consecutively. We invited the parties to respond, and Taylor's counsel supplied a response stating that in view of the district court's memorandum, he perceived no non-frivolous argument against the sentencing package. Counsel nevertheless requested that Taylor be allowed an additional 30 days to research the issue himself. We never formally granted that request, but nevertheless, well over 30 days have passed with no response from Taylor forthcoming. Moreover, we agree with defense counsel that the district court's memorandum shows that the district court appreciated its discretion and exercised it appropriately. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.