United States v. Ohlinger, John D.

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Ohlinger, John D.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2005

Docket03-3380

StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Ohlinger, John D. (United States v. Ohlinger, John D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Ohlinger, John D., (7th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ﬁaniteh ﬁvtateﬁ Qtuurt of gppeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 10, 2005 Before Hon. Joel M. Flaum, ChiefJudge Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

Hon. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

No. 03-3880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. U. No. 02 CR 150 JOHN D. OHLINGER, Defendant-Appellant. John C. Shabaz, Judge. 0 R D E R

On August 2, 2004, this Court issued an opinion and order vacating Ohlinger’s sentence and remanding for resentencing. Plaintiff-appellee filed a petition for rehearing on September 15, 2004. After consideration of the petition, all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing, and the petition is therefore DENIED. However, this Court hereby amends its August 2, 2004 opinion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and this Court’s decision in United States v. Paladino, et al., Nos. 03—2296, et al. (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2005).

The slip opinion issued on August 2, 2004 is amended as followed:

The language on pages 3 and 4 is withdrawn and replaced by the following:

II. Discussion

Ohlinger raises a number of challenges to his sentence. The district court sentenced Ohlinger prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. In accordance with Booker and our recent decision in United States U. Paladino et al., No. 03-2296, et a1. (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2005), we remand this case to the district court for determination whether that court would have imposed the same sentence had it understood that the guidelines were advisory.

III. Conclusion

Pursuant to the procedure announced in Paladino, we direct a limited remand of Ohlinger’s sentence while retaining appellate jurisdiction.

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

ﬁaniteh ﬁvtateﬁ Qtuurt of gppeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 10, 2005 Before Hon. Joel M. Flaum, ChiefJudge Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

Hon. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

No. 03-3880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. U. No. 02 CR 150 JOHN D. OHLINGER, Defendant-Appellant. John C. Shabaz, Judge. 0 R D E R

On August 2, 2004, this Court issued an opinion and order vacating Ohlinger’s sentence and remanding for resentencing. Plaintiff-appellee filed a petition for rehearing on September 15, 2004. After consideration of the petition, all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing, and the petition is therefore DENIED. However, this Court hereby amends its August 2, 2004 opinion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and this Court’s decision in United States v. Paladino, et al., Nos. 03—2296, et al. (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2005).

The slip opinion issued on August 2, 2004 is amended as followed:

The language on pages 3 and 4 is withdrawn and replaced by the following:

II. Discussion

Ohlinger raises a number of challenges to his sentence. The district court sentenced Ohlinger prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. In accordance with Booker and our recent decision in United States U. Paladino et al., No. 03-2296, et a1. (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2005), we remand this case to the district court for determination whether that court would have imposed the same sentence had it understood that the guidelines were advisory.

III. Conclusion

Pursuant to the procedure announced in Paladino, we direct a limited remand of Ohlinger’s sentence while retaining appellate jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Ohlinger, John D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ohlinger-john-d-ca7-2005.

Opinion

II. Discussion

III. Conclusion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack