Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued September 29, 2015 Decided October 5, 2015 Before… v. Martin Evanick

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued September 29, 2015
Decided October 5, 2015
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
No. 13-­‐‑3476
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,
v.
MARTIN EVANICK,
Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.
No. 12-­‐‑30291-­‐‑001-­‐‑GPM
G. Patrick Murphy, Judge.
Order
After pleading guilty to producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §2251(a), Martin
Evanick was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release. He con-­‐‑
tests that sentence on appeal.
The parties have agreed that a full resentencing is required by United States v.
Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015), and its successors, such as United States v. Kappes,
782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015), because the district judge did not adequately discuss and
justify the discretionary terms of supervised release.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13-­‐‑3476 Page 2
Evanick contends that we should go further and hold that 235 months is an unrea-­‐‑
sonably long term of imprisonment, even though it is within a properly calculated
Guideline range. But it would be premature to address that subject. The district court
will resentence Evanick, potentially with the benefit of an expanded record, and may
choose a lower term of imprisonment. If the judge gives a term of 235 months or more
(resentencing can lead to longer as well as shorter terms), that decision will be accom-­‐‑
panied by new reasons. And all of this will be done by a different district judge, the
judge who imposed the existing sentence having retired. It is best to allow the district
court to complete the process of resentencing before the court of appeals addresses any
complaint about the reasonableness of the result.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.

-- 2 of 2 --