United States of America v. T E O D U L O P I N E D A - B U E N A V E N T U R A , Otonie Lmendoza, Gerardo…

*The Honorable John W. Darrah, United States District Court Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, sitting by designation.
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
October 6, 2010
Before
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge*
Nos. 09‐1500, 09‐1525, 09‐1875,
& 09‐2431
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
T E O D U L O P I N E D A ‐
B U E N A V E N T U R A , OTONIE L
MENDOZA, GERARDO PINEDA‐
SORIA, and ARTURO PINEDA‐
LOPEZ,
Defendants‐Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 08‐CR‐105
Barbara B. Crabb,
Judge.
O R D E R
On consideration of the petition for panel rehearing filed by Plaintiff‐Appellee on
September 29, 2010, the opinion issued in the above‐entitled case on September 15, 2010, is
hereby AMENDED as follows:

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 09‐1500, 09‐1525, 09‐1875, 09‐2431 Page 2
Page 5, lines 11‐15, the following sentence is deleted: “Under this standard of review,
we affirm a sentence unless, after considering all the evidence, we have a “definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Haynes, 582
F.3d 686, 709 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).”;
Page 5, line 21, the following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph: “This
constitutes plain error that affected Pineda‐Buenaventura’s substantial rights and
seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings. See United States v. Garrett, 528
F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008).”;
Page 6, line 31, the following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph: “This
was plain error that seriously affected the integrity of the proceedings, because
Pineda‐Buenaventura was sentenced based on an incorrect Guideline range. See
Farmer, 543 F.3d at 375; see also United States v. Avila, 557 F.3d 809, 822 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“It appears that the district court simply applied the wrong range, which constitutes
plain error.”).”;
Page 7, lines 4‐7, the following citation is deleted: “See, e.g., United States v. Salem, 597
F.3d 877, 887‐88 (7th Cir. 2010) (remanding for resentencing when findings were
insufficient to support sentence imposed)” and is replaced with “See, e.g., Garrett, 528
F.3d at 530 (finding plain error and remanding to district court when “we have no
reason to believe its error in the application of the Guideline range did not affect its
selection of the particular sentence.”).”; and
Page 7, line 14, the following citation is deleted: “See id. at 888” and is replaced with
“See United States v. Salem, 597 F.3d 877, 888 (7th Cir. 2010)”
All members of the original panel have otherwise voted to DENY the petition for
rehearing. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --