UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel ROSS, Defendant-Appellant, 184 F. App'x 546

ORDER After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge informed us that he would have imposed the same sentence on Daniel Ross had he known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence is within the properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005).

Ross now contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to promote respect for the law and because his time incarcerated will leave him inadequately educated and vocationally unprepared. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But neither these arguments nor our independent review suggest unreasonableness, and therefore the judgment is AFFIRMED.