NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 9, 2011*
Decided February 9, 2011
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 10‐2580
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 09 CR 565‐2
JERMAINE JONES,
Defendant‐Appellant. Elaine E. Bucklo,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jermaine Jones and his wife stole more than 2,100 Social Security numbers from her
workplace and used this information to obtain loans over the Internet. Jones pleaded guilty
to wire fraud, see
18 U.S.C. § 1343, and was sentenced to a below‐guidelines term of
58 months’ imprisonment. In calculating Jones’s imprisonment range, the district court
followed our decision in United States v. Demaree,
459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006), and used the
guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing. If the court had used the guidelines
*
After examining 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)(C).
No. 10‐2580 Page 2
manual in effect when Jones committed his crime, however, Jones’s offense level would
have been lower—and thus too his imprisonment range.
On appeal Jones asks us to overrule Demaree, which held not only that the district
court must use the guidelines manual in effect on the date of sentencing but also that the Ex
Post Facto Clause poses no obstacle. This is not the first time we have been invited to
abandon Demaree, but we have yet to be offered a compelling reason. See, e.g., United States
v. Favara,
615 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Custable v. United
States,
79 U.S.L.W. 3310 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2010) (No. 10‐631); United States v. Nurek,
578 F.3d 618,
625‐26 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 2093 (2010); United States v. Patterson,
576 F.3d
431, 444 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 1284 (2010). In fact Jones does not even offer a
new argument. He acknowledges, though, that he does not anticipate our upsetting
precedent but simply wishes to preserve the issue for presentation to the Supreme Court.
AFFIRMED.
