United States v. Gantt, Deon T. , 186 F. App'x 676 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    June 23, 2006
    Before
    Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Chief Judge
    Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
    Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
    Nos. 03-2299, 03-3167, 03-3765,
    & 04-1238
    Appeals from the United
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       States District Court for the
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                         Southern District of
    Indiana, Evansville Division.
    v.
    No. 02 CR 02
    DEON T. GANTT, CHAD M.
    CARRICO, WILFREDO BARRIOS,                      Richard L. Young, Judge.
    and JOSE R. VIGIL,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    ORDER
    We ordered a limited remand to ask whether the district judge, had he known
    the sentencing guidelines were advisory, would have imposed the same sentence on
    Deon Gantt, Chad Carrico, Wilfredo Barrios, and Jose Vigil. See United States v.
    Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005); United States v. Paladino, 
    401 F.3d 471
    , 484 (7th Cir.
    2005). He answered that he would.
    We invited the parties to respond, and the defendants did in a consolidated
    manner. The defendants summarily ask us to revisit all of the issues previously raised
    in their appeals, which we will not do. The defendants also claim–without elaboration
    Nos. 03-2299, 03-3167, 03-3765, & 04-1238                                          Page 2
    or support–that “the district court abused its discretion in light of the factors set forth
    in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    .” We will uphold sentences on Paladino remand if the district
    judge gave “meaningful consideration” to the statutory factors. United States v.
    Williams, 
    425 F.3d 478
    , 480 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, the court issued a separate order
    for each defendant, and in each instance the district court reaffirmed its sentencing
    rationale. Because each of the sentences were within properly calculated guidelines
    ranges, they are presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mytiuk, 
    415 F.3d 606
    , 608
    (7th Cir. 2005). The defendants do not articulate a challenge to the reasonableness of
    their sentences, and we see no basis for error. The sentences are AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2299, 03-3167, 03-3765, 04-1238

Citation Numbers: 186 F. App'x 676

Judges: Hon, Flaum, Kanne, Evans

Filed Date: 6/23/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024