United States of America v. Dana Warmuz

* 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 July 19, 2006*
Decided July 21, 2006
Before
Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 05-4111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANA WARMUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division
No. 04-CR-938-1
Amy J. St. Eve,
Judge.
O R D E R
Dana Warmuz pleaded guilty to embezzlement, see 18 U.S.C. § 656, and was
sentenced under the advisory sentencing guidelines to 24 months in prison. Now
she argues that her sentence violates ex post facto principles of due process because
the district court would have been required to impose a lower sentence under the
mandatory guidelines regime that was in place when she committed her crime.
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-4111 Page 2
As Warmuz acknowledges, we have already decided that no due process
violation arises from retroactively applying the advisory regime created by United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693,
698-99 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 2005).
Nonetheless, Warmuz asks us to change the rule. In a number of recent cases,
however, we have already rejected the arguments she offers for overruling our
precedent. E.g., United States v. Sliman, 449 F.3d 797, 801 (7th Cir. 2006); United
States v. Farris, 448 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir. 2006).
Indeed, we are especially confident of our views when we consider that every
other circuit agrees with us. See United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107, 110-12 (1st
Cir. 2005); United States v. Fairclough, 439 F.3d 76, 78-79 (2d Cir. 2006) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 2006 WL 1527191 (U.S. June 19, 2006); United States v.
Pennavaria, 445 F.3d 720, 723-24 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Davenport, 445
F.3d 366, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 555 (6th Cir.
2006); United States v. Wade, 435 F.3d 829, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); United
States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1484
(2006); United States v. Rines, 419 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1089 (2006); United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 432 (2005); United States v. Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d
331, 343 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --