UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel W. ROEPKE, Defendant-Appellant, 146 F. App'x 65

ORDER After our March 4, 2005, remand pursuant to Paladino, the district judge advised us that, had the guidelines been simply advisory in this case, a more harsh sentence than the 87-month sentence Daniel Roepke received would have been imposed. Accordingly, Roepke cannot establish plain error that prejudiced him when the judge imposed the original sentence under the mandatory sentencing guideline regimen. With Mr. Roepke’s conviction having been affirmed in our order of March 4, and the further proceedings conducted by the district court as summarized in its order of May 13, 2005, this case is now closed.