Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Oct. 06, 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Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 6, 2005 Before HON. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge HON. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge HON. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 03-2513 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 02-20014-001 PHILIP D. JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 6, 2005 Before HON. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge HON. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge HON. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 03-2513 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Central District of Illinois. v. No. 02-20014-001 PHILIP D. JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
October 6, 2005
Before
HON. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
HON. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
HON. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 03-2513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the
Central District of Illinois.
v.
No. 02-20014-001
PHILIP D. JONES,
Defendant-Appellant. Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge.
ORDER
This case originally came to us on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration
in light of United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We previously ordered a limited remand
of Philip D. Jones’s sentence in accordance with Booker and Paladino so that the district court could
determine whether it believed Jones’s sentence remains appropriate now that Booker has relegated
the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status.
The district court has replied that, now knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory, it
desires to resentence Jones. We invited both parties to file any arguments concerning the appropriate
disposition of this case in light of the district court’s decision. Both parties have filed statements
agreeing that the case should be remanded to the district court for resentencing.
Therefore, while we reaffirm our decision rejecting Jones’s challenges to his conviction, see
United States v. Jones,
389 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2004), we hereby VACATE Jones’s sentence and
REMAND the case for resentencing, which must be conducted in conformity with Booker.