United States of America v. Eric J. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
January 30, 2006
Before
Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 04-1996
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIC J. JOHNSON
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:03 CR 83
Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Eric Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than
50 grams of cocaine base. He raised only one issue on appeal before this court, which
was whether his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to 210
months in prison under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. We directed a
limited remand pursuant to the procedures set forth in United States v. Paladino, 401
F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court has informed us that it would impose the
same sentence under the now-advisory Guidelines. In so doing, the district court
clearly and thoroughly evaluated all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and
determined that Johnson’s “stunning criminal record,” “the need for the sentence to
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-1996 Page 2
reflect the seriousness of the offense and to provide just punishment and to promote
respect for the law, [and] the need to protect the public from Mr. Johnson” justify his
sentence of 210 months, the bottom of the properly calculated sentencing range.
Sentencing ranges properly calculated under the Guidelines are presumptively
reasonable, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.2005). Both Johnson
and the government had the opportunity to file memoranda about the reasonableness
of Johnson’s sentence, in light of the district court’s statement. The government took
advantage of that invitation, arguing that the sentence is reasonable, particularly in
light of Johnson’s criminal history and the amount of crack he possessed (87.53 grams).
Johnson did not file a response and therefore has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness. Nor does our independent review suggest that the sentence is
unreasonable.
The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --