United States v. Carter, Eddie R.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
April 27, 2006
Before
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 04-2008
Appeal from the United States District
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01 CR 783
EDDIE R. CARTER, Charles R. Norgle, Sr.,
Judge.
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
A jury convicted Eddie Carter on two counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), and one count of brandishing a firearm in the commission of a bank
robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Carter to 272
months of imprisonment. Thereafter, we affirmed the conviction and the district
court’s guideline calculation. See United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 948-56 (7th
Cir. 2005). Additionally, we ordered a limited remand under United States v.
Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), so that the district court could state on the
record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), has limited the guidelines to advisory status. See Carter, 410
F.3d at 953-54, 956.
In reply, after reviewing the appropriate considerations under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence had it
known that the guidelines were advisory. Carter did not respond to our invitation
No. 04-2008 Page 2
to file arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the
district court’s limited remand decision. The government did respond, and it
requests that we affirm.
The appropriate guideline range for the two bank robbery counts was 188-235
months. The district court’s sentence on these counts was 188 months. The
additional 84 months was a mandatory statutory penalty under § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) for
the third count of brandishing a firearm. Thus, the 272-month sentence was the
lowest possible sentence under the applicable guideline and statutory provisions.
We do not see any reason why Carter’s sentence would be deemed unreasonable in
post-Booker practice. The judgment of the district court therefore is AFFIRMED.