Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Thomas, Adriese, 04-2553 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Number: 04-2553 Visitors: 7
Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Jan. 10, 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Summary: UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 January 10, 2006 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 04-2553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division v. No. 03 CR 831-1 ADRIESE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. James B. Zagel,
More
                           UNPUBLISHED ORDER
                        Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53




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

                                 January 10, 2006

                                      Before

                    Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

                    Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

                    Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 04-2553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                      Court for the Northern District of
                                             Illinois, Eastern Division
      v.
                                             No. 03 CR 831-1
ADRIESE THOMAS,
     Defendant-Appellant.                    James B. Zagel,
                                             Judge.


                                    ORDER

       On limited remand pursuant to United States v. Paladino, 
401 F.3d 471
(7th
Cir. 2005), the district court responded that it would have imposed the same
sentence had it known the guidelines were not mandatory. Thomas’s 24-month
sentence is in the middle of a properly calculated guideline range and is therefore
presumptively reasonable. See United States. v Mykytiuk, 
415 F.3d 606
, 608 (7th
Cir. 2005). And because Thomas declined our invitation to file memoranda
concerning the district court’s response, she failed to rebut this presumption.
Nothing in the record suggests this sentence is unreasonable, thus, we AFFIRM the
judgment.

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