United States v. Blaylock, Trenise , 163 F. App'x 422 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    January 30, 2006
    Before
    Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    No. 03-1549
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                       Court for the Eastern District of
    Wisconsin
    v.
    No. 02-CR-147
    TRENISE BLAYLOCK,
    Defendant-Appellant.                      Charles N. Clevert, Jr.,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Trenise Blaylock was sentenced for armed bank robbery, 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a), (d); conspiracy, 
    id.
     §§ 371, 2113(a), (d); and carrying and using a gun
    during the robbery, id. § 924(c). Sentencing her under the formerly mandatory
    sentencing guidelines, the court calculated an offense level of 25 but departed
    downward (as it was called under the old regime) the equivalent of three levels for
    substantial assistance, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Guided by an effective offense level of
    22 and Blaylock’s Category I criminal history, the court imposed concurrent
    sentences of 41 months’ imprisonment on the bank robbery and conspiracy
    counts—well below the actual range of 57 to 71 months. The court also imposed a
    mandatory consecutive sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for the § 924(c)
    No. 03-1549                                                                     Page 2
    conviction because the gun was fired. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(iii). Additionally,
    the court imposed concurrent terms of supervised release: five years each for the
    robbery and firearm counts and three for conspiracy.
    Blaylock appealed, arguing that the court plainly erred by sentencing her
    under the mandatory guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005);
    United States v. Paladino, 
    401 F.3d 471
     (7th Cir. 2005). Consequently, we ordered
    a limited remand to ask whether the district court would have imposed the same
    sentence under an advisory regime, see Paladino, 
    401 F.3d at 484
    . The court
    answered that it would, and so we will affirm if reasonable, see 
    id.
     For her part,
    Blaylock has offered no reason to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached
    to this correctly calculated sentence, see United States v. Mykytiuk, 
    415 F.3d 606
    (7th Cir. 2005). In any event, we cannot call her sentence, which is below the
    applicable guidelines range, unreasonably long, see United States v. George, 
    403 F.3d 470
    , 473 (7th Cir. 2005).
    Nevertheless, there is one last matter. The district court conscientiously
    alerted us to an error in its restitution order. The court ordered Blaylock to pay
    restitution of $19,008.53 as a condition of her supervised release but, as all parties
    agree, the correct amount is $4,542.80. We AFFIRM the sentence but REMAND
    WITH INSTRUCTIONS to correct the amount of restitution.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1549

Citation Numbers: 163 F. App'x 422

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023