United States of America v. Sammy Armstead

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
January 30, 2009
Before
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 04‐1999
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
SAMMY ARMSTEAD,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 02 CR 895
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Judge.
O R D E R
On March 16, 2007, we ordered a limited remand of Darryl Wilson’s and Sammy
Armstead’s cases under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). See 481 F.3d
475. Upon the district court’s request, the parties submitted briefs regarding resentencing
and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). On August 26, 2008, the district court issued
an order concluding that had it known it had the discretion to impose a sentence other than
the Guidelines sentence for Armstead, it nevertheless would have imposed the same
sentence.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-1999 Page 2
Armstead argues now that the district failed to consider his arguments in favor of
a lower sentence. In particular, he points out that the district court’s order makes no
mention of his argument that his background (what he refers to as his “cultural
assimilation” argument) entitled him to a lower sentence. It is true that the district court
did not provide much of an explanation for its ruling. But we have held that “on a limited
Paladino remand, a judge need not employ a full‐fledged methodology for measuring the
reasonableness of the Guidelines sentence against § 3553(a).” United States v. Johnson, 534
F.3d 690, 695 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Spano, 447 F.3d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 2006). The
record demonstrates that Armstead had an opportunity to draw the court’s attention to the
§ 3553(a) factors and that the court was not persuaded to change its original within‐
guidelines sentence. Armstead makes no argument that convinces us that his within‐
guidelines sentence was unreasonable. We therefore AFFIRM Armstead’s sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --