Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Oct. 18, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 18, 2005 Before Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 04-1332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02-CR-30135-MJR DANIEL W. ROEPKE, Defendant-Appellant. Michael J. Reagan, Judge. ORDER A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 18, 2005 Before Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 04-1332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02-CR-30135-MJR DANIEL W. ROEPKE, Defendant-Appellant. Michael J. Reagan, Judge. ORDER Af..
More
UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 18, 2005 Before Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 04-1332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02-CR-30135-MJR DANIEL W. ROEPKE, Defendant-Appellant. Michael J. Reagan, Judge. ORDER After our March 4, 2005, remand pursuant to Paladino, the district judge advised us that, had the guidelines been simply advisory in this case, a more harsh sentence than the 87-month sentence Daniel Roepke received would have been imposed. Accordingly, Roepke cannot establish plain error that prejudiced him when the judge imposed the original sentence under the mandatory sentencing guideline regimen. With Mr. Roepke’s conviction having been affirmed in our order of March 4, and the further proceedings conducted by the district court as summarized in its order of May 13, 2005, this case is now closed.
