Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Harris, Lavar, 04-1786 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Number: 04-1786 Visitors: 55
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jun. 30, 2006
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 30, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 04-1786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division v. No. 02 CR 1129 LAVAR HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Joan B. Gottschall, Judge
More
                           UNPUBLISHED ORDER
                        Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53



           United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Seventh Circuit
                            Chicago, Illinois 60604

                                   June 30, 2006

                                      Before

                     Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

                     Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

                     Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                      Court for the Northern District of
                                             Illinois, Eastern Division
      v.
                                             No. 02 CR 1129
LAVAR HARRIS,
    Defendant-Appellant.                     Joan B. Gottschall,
                                             Judge.


                                    ORDER

       After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 
543 U.S. 220
(2005); United States v. Paladino, 
401 F.3d 471
, 484 (7th Cir. 2003), the district
judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Lavar Harris
had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is
within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable.
United States v. Mykytiuk, 
415 F.3d 606
, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Harris contends that
Mykytiuk was wrongly decided, but does not identify any basis under the factors
outlined in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) to question the reasonableness of his sentence. Our
independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, therefore the
judgment is AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer