United States v. Hedges, Darrell G. , 140 F. App'x 624 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 11, 2005
August 1, 2005
Before
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 04-1428
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin
v.
No. 03-CR-106-S-01
DARRELL G. HEDGES,
Defendant-Appellant. John C. Shabaz,
Judge.
ORDER
After the Supreme Court instructed that the sentencing guidelines are to be
applied only in advisory fashion, United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we
ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have
sentenced Hedges differently had it known that it was not bound by the guidelines.
See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge
replied that he would have imposed an identical sentence even under advisory
guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments concerning the reasonableness
of the sentences. The government responded within the seven-day deadline but
Hedges did not. We now affirm the sentence.
We recently held that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline
range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, No. 04-1196, 2005
WL 1592956, at *1 (7th Cir. July 7, 2005). An appellant can rebut the presumption
No. 04-1428 Page 2
by demonstrating that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the
factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. at *2. Here, Hedges received a 188-month
sentence, at the top of the range of 151 to 188 months.
Hedges made no argument as to why his sentence might be unreasonable,
and he has therefore failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. The
district court gave due consideration to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
such as Hedges’s past military service and his chemical dependency, and found that
the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the interests in holding Hedges
accountable for the severity of his crime and deterring him from further criminal
conduct. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.