United States of America v. Kevin T. Romez

* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the
record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 11, 2005*
Decided August 11, 2005
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 04-1264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KEVIN T. ROMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Western Division
No. 02 CR 50052
Philip G. Reinhard,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three
kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with
intent to distribute the marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), carrying a firearm in
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-1264 Page 2
relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a
firearm by a felon, id. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering
into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his
convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government.
Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by
applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and contends that a limited remand under United States v.
Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), is necessary. For its part the government
asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the Booker issue, and
we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an
appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, Booker
notwithstanding. See United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636–37 (7th Cir. 2005);
see also United States v. Lockwood, No. 04-2511, 2005 WL 1743745, at *4 (7th Cir.
July 26, 2005); United States v. Roche, No. 04-1475, 2005 WL 1618816, at *2 (7th
Cir. July 11, 2005); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir. 2005).
Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --