United States of America v. Jesus Mendiola

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
January 23, 2006
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 03-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS MENDIOLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 03 CR 56
Larry J. McKinney, Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Jesus Mendiola challenged his 270-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, arguing that in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct.
738 (2005), the district court committed plain error by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as if they were
mandatory. On May 12, 2005, we ordered a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Paladino, 401
F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir. 2005), to allow the district court an opportunity to consider whether it would
impose the same sentence with the knowledge that the Guidelines are not mandatory.
The district court responded that it would have imposed the same sentence had the Guidelines been
advisory at the time of Mendiola’s sentencing. We invited both parties to file statements concerning the
appropriate disposition of this appeal in light of the district court’s decision; only the government responded.
The government argues that Mendiola’s sentence is reasonable.
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-4261 Page 2
Mendiola’s sentence is near the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. We have held that a
sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. See United States
v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Because the district court would have imposed the same
sentence post-Booker, and because Mendiola has offered nothing to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness that attaches to his accurately calculated sentence, we conclude that Mendiola’s sentence
was not the result of plain error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 2 --