UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant, 157 F. App'x 895

ORDER On limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), the district court concluded that “it would have imposed the same sentence” had it known that the sentencing guidelines were advisory. The parties were offered the opportunity to respond before we finally resolved the appeal. Defendant Washington chose not to respond while the government did requesting that we affirm the district court’s sentence. Washington’s sentence is within the guideline range and therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005).

His failure to respond leaves that presumption unrebutted. The district court’s sentence does not appear to be unreasonable and therefore is AFFIRMED.