Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Feb. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 February 4, 2008 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 04-2364 Appeal from the United States District Court for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, Eastern Division. v. No. 01 CR 502 JAMES FRITH, JR., Rebecca
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 February 4, 2008 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 04-2364 Appeal from the United States District Court for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, Eastern Division. v. No. 01 CR 502 JAMES FRITH, JR., Rebecca ..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 4, 2008
Before
Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 04-2364 Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Eastern Division.
v. No. 01 CR 502
JAMES FRITH, JR., Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Defendant-Appellant. Judge.
ORDER
On August 29, 2006, this court ordered a limited remand so the district court
could state on the record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), has limited the guidelines to advisory
status. See United States v. Paladino,
401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).
The district judge has now replied that she cannot conclude that she would
have imposed the same sentence on Frith at the time of his original sentencing had
she known that the guidelines were advisory and not binding. In reply to our
invitation to comment on the district court’s Paladino response, the United States
agrees that resentencing is appropriate. The defendant did not file a position
statement. Accordingly, pursuant to Paladino, we VACATE Frith’s sentence and
REMAND to the district court for resentencing.