Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin W. SCHMEILSKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-18
Citations: 139 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 04-2014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin W. SCHMEILSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BAUER, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 741–742

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin W. SCHMEILSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-2014.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
July 18, 2005.
Thomas A. Keith, Office of the United States Attorney, Peoria, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
George F. Taseff, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BAUER, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
After concluding that Kevin Schmeilski's conviction should be affirmed, we ordered a limited remand so that the district court could determine whether it believed the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has relegated the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).
The district court judge has replied that he would impose the same sentence today knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory. Therefore, "we will affirm the original sentence against [Schmeilski's] plain error challenge provided the sentence is reasonable, the standard of review prescribed by Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765." Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.
On July 1, 2005, we invited the parties to file, within seven days, any arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court's decision. That time has now passed. We received a submission from the government but not from Schmeilski.
Schmeilski received a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range. There fore, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 607 (7th Cir.2005). The district court judge explained his belief that the sentence was required to reflect the seriousness of Schmeilski's conduct, as well as to protect the three minor stepchildren Schmeilski sexually exploited and the community. We see no reason why the sentence should be deemed "unreasonable." Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
. Schmeilski was sentenced to 213 months' imprisonment on Count 1 and 60 months on Count 3, to run concurrently with each other and with the unexpired term of a state court sentence on charges arising out of the same conduct. The 213 month sentence resulted from the district court's selection of a sentence at the high end of the applicable Guideline range (235 months), less credit for 22 months already served in state custody.