Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio CHICHITZ-MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-19
Citations: 208 F. App'x 497
Docket Number: No. 04-2279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio CHICHITZ-MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 497–499

Head Matter:
UNPUBLISHED ORDER This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio CHICHITZ-MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-2279.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Dec. 19, 2006.
John T. Ryan, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Richard H. Parsons, Jonathan E. Hawley, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
On April 27, 2005, we remanded this case under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), in order to ask the district judge whether he would have imposed a lesser sentence on Sergio Chichitz-Martin had he known at the time of sentencing that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The district court, after additional briefing, concluded that the original sentence remains appropriate. We invited both parties to comment on the reasonableness of the sentence, but the December 6, 2006, deadline has passed without word from either.
In January 2004 Chichitz-Martin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1). The district court imposed a sentence of 135 months, the bottom of the range of 135 to 168 months. In our April 2005 order we rejected Chichitz-Martin's arguments that the range was improperly calculated, so all that is left to decide is whether the 135-month sentence is reasonable.
We presume that the sentence is reasonable because it falls within the properly calculated guideline range. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). And Chichitz-Martin has not rebutted the presumption by establishing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); indeed, he has not supplied us with any arguments regarding the reasonableness of his sentence. We recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States will take up the issue of a presumption of reasonableness in United States v. Rita, 177 Fed.Appx. 357 (4th Cir.2006), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 551, 166 L.Ed.2d 406 (2006). Even absent such a presumption, however, an argument that this sentence is unreasonable would be equally unpersuasive. The district court gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and provided a thorough, reasoned explanation for its choice of sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 767, 769 (7th Cir.2006). The court weighed Chichitz-Martin's arguments for a lower sentence — his youth, his remorse, his foreign citizenship, and his lack of prior convictions — against the considerations weighing in favor of a higher sentence, such as the large drug quantity and the defendant's leadership role, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable, and, accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.