United States v. Johnson, Ronald B. ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    December 21, 2006
    Before
    Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    No. 03-4322
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,              Court for the Eastern District
    of Wisconsin
    v.
    No. 02-CR-237
    RONALD BERNARD JOHNSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.                 J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
    ORDER
    This case has returned to us after a limited remand that we ordered pursuant
    to United States v. Paladino, 
    401 F.3d 471
    , 483-84 (7th Cir. 2005). Ronald Johnson was
    convicted after a jury trial of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, see 18
    U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), for which he was sentenced to serve 225 months in prison. The
    sentence was imposed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
    
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), when the federal sentencing guidelines were understood to be
    mandatory. After affirming Johnson’s conviction, see United States v. Johnson, 
    415 F.3d 728
    (7th Cir. 2005), we remanded to give the district court the opportunity to
    consider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if it had known the
    No. 03-4322                                                                       Page 2
    guidelines were advisory. The district court has informed us that it would indeed have
    imposed the same sentence had it not been bound by the guidelines. We invited both
    parties to file any argument they might have regarding the appropriate disposition of
    this appeal in light of the district court’s decision. Neither party chose to do so. We
    must now determine whether the sentence is reasonable.
    Johnson’s 225-month sentence fell within the applicable guidelines range of 210
    to 262 months. We have held that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines
    range is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 
    415 F.3d 606
    , 608
    (7th Cir. 2005). In imposing the sentence, the district court discussed Johnson’s “very
    lengthy record and the fact that [he has] not learned from [his] prior experiences,”
    considerations plainly relevant to the history and characteristics of the defendant,
    which are listed factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court noted that it
    would consider the same factors in imposing the same sentence under an advisory
    guideline regime, and Johnson has not come forward with any argument that rebuts
    the presumption of reasonableness we accord his sentence. We are aware that the
    Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Rita v. United States, 
    127 S. Ct. 551
    (2006)
    (No. 06-5754), in order to decide whether a presumption of reasonableness is consistent
    with its Booker decision. In Johnson’s case, however, the district court’s careful survey
    of the § 3553(a) factors and our own review of the record satisfy us that the ultimate
    sentence was reasonable, even without the benefit of any such presumption.
    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4322

Judges: Hon, Coffey, Manion, Wood

Filed Date: 12/21/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024