United States v. Romez, Kevin T. , 143 F. App'x 708 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted August 11, 2005*
    Decided August 11, 2005
    Before
    Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    No. 04-1264
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                       Court for the Northern District of
    Illinois, Western Division
    v.
    No. 02 CR 50052
    KEVIN T. ROMEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.                      Philip G. Reinhard,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three
    kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with
    intent to distribute the marijuana, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), carrying a firearm in
    *
    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).
    No. 04-1264                                                                       Page 2
    relation to a drug trafficking crime, 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A), and possession of a
    firearm by a felon, 
    id.
     § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering
    into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his
    convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government.
    Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by
    applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker,
    
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005), and contends that a limited remand under United States v.
    Paladino, 
    401 F.3d 471
     (7th Cir. 2005), is necessary. For its part the government
    asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the Booker issue, and
    we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an
    appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, Booker
    notwithstanding. See United States v. Bownes, 
    405 F.3d 634
    , 636–37 (7th Cir. 2005);
    see also United States v. Lockwood, No. 04-2511, 
    2005 WL 1743745
    , at *4 (7th Cir.
    July 26, 2005); United States v. Roche, No. 04-1475, 
    2005 WL 1618816
    , at *2 (7th
    Cir. July 11, 2005); United States v. Cieslowski, 
    410 F.3d 353
    , 362 (7th Cir. 2005).
    Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1264

Citation Numbers: 143 F. App'x 708

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/11/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023