United States v. Wallace, Jonathan E.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 27, 2006 Before Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeal from the United Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for ] the Western District of No. 04-2618 v. ] Wisconsin. ] JONATHAN E. WALLACE, ] No. 03 CR 157 Defendant-Appellant. ] ] Barbara B. Crabb, ] Chief Judge. Jonathan Wallace pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. He appealed to this court and subsequently filed a motion for limited remand, asserting that the only issue on appeal he intended to raise is whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it understood that the Guidelines were advisory. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Accordingly, this court ordered a limited remand under the terms set forth in United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court has replied that it would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the Guidelines’ advisory status. The parties were offered the opportunity to respond before we finally resolved the appeal. The government responded that this court should affirm the district court’s sentence, and Wallace chose not to respond. No. 04-2618 Page 2 Wallace’s sentence is within the properly calculated guideline range and therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Because the district court would have imposed the same sentence post-Booker, and because Wallace has offered nothing to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his accurately calculated sentence, we conclude that Wallace’s sentence was not the result of plain error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.