Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. STOKES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-11
Citations: 161 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 04-2730
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. STOKES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny L. STOKES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-2730.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 11, 2006.
Michelle L. Jacobs, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Jonathan E. Hawley, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Johnny Stokes argued that the district court erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines. The government conceded the error, so we ordered a limited remand to ask the district court whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory, see United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005). The court has assured us that it would have, so the only remaining question is the reasonableness of Stokes' sentence. Since Stokes' sentence was in the middle of a properly calculated guideline range, it was presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). And because Stokes has not responded to the district court's statement, he has not rebutted that presumption. The judgment is AFFIRMED.