United States v. Blake, Ronald E.

146 F. App'x 851
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided October 24, 2005·No. 03-3716·Unpublished·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

After concluding that Ronald Blake’s conviction should be affirmed, we ordered a limited remand so that the district judge could determine whether the sentence he imposed is appropriate, given that the federal sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory. See United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

On limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge concluded that he would have imposed a different sentence had he known that the federal sentencing guidelines were merely advisory.

Both parties were offered the opportunity to respond before we finally resolve the appeal; the defendant responded but the plaintiff responded late. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for re-sentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Blake, Ronald E., 146 F. App'x 851 (7th Cir. 2005).

146 F. App'x 851 (United States v. Blake, Ronald E.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Ronald Blake
Seventh Circuit, 2013
United States v. Blake
501 F. App'x 587 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)