Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul HENNINGSEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-17
Citations: 162 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 03-3681
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul HENNINGSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, and Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul HENNINGSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-3681.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 17, 2006.
Mel S. Johnson, Steven M. Biskupic, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dennis P. Coffey, Domnitz, Mawicke & Goisman, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, and Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
On remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge found no reason to disturb defendant-appellant Paul Henningseris original sentence "in light of the parties' agreement that re-sentencing is unnecessary". See District Court order of December 9, 2005. We agree.
The court minutes of a status conference (docket entry no. 71) held on November 22, 2005, reveal that defendant Henningseris attorney informed the district judge that Henningsen completed his sentence and paid all financial obligations and is now on supervised release. The notes of the hearing further reveal that counsel then advised the court that he was "not seeking any action upon the court", and the government added that the case had become moot.
Both parties were offered the opportunity to respond to the district court order of December 9, 2005, before we finally resolve the appeal. No one filed a response. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED as defendant has abandoned any issue regarding his original sentence on appeal.
. Contrary to our first opinion in this case, 387 F.3d 585, we did not vacate defendant's sentence. United States v. Henningsen, 402 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.2005) (Henningsen II).