United States v. Stokes, Johnny L.

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Stokes, Johnny L.

161 F. App'x 602

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 2006

Docket04-2730

StatusUnpublished

This text of 161 F. App'x 602 (United States v. Stokes, Johnny L.) 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. Stokes, Johnny L., 161 F. App'x 602 (7th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Johnny Stokes argued that the district court erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines. The government conceded the error, so we ordered a limited remand to ask the district court whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory, see United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005). The court has assured us that it would have, so the only remaining question is the reasonableness of Stokes’ sentence. Since Stokes’ sentence was in the middle of a properly calculated guideline range, it was presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). And because Stokes has not responded to the district court’s statement, he has not rebutted that presumption. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

Johnny Stokes argued that the district court erred under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by sentencing him under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines. The government conceded the error, so we ordered a limited remand to ask the district court whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory, see United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005). The court has assured us that it would have, so the only remaining question is the reasonableness of Stokes’ sentence. Since Stokes’ sentence was in the middle of a properly calculated guideline range, it was presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). And because Stokes has not responded to the district court’s statement, he has not rebutted that presumption. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 F. App'x 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stokes-johnny-l-ca7-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack