USA v. Fadeyi, Michael, No. 06-1533 (7th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted September 6, 2006 Decided September 11, 2006 Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-1533 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 00 CR 153 Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. MICHAEL FADEYI, Defendant-Appellant. Order Fadeyi's conviction and most of his sentence were affirmed in 2004, although we remanded for reconsideration of the forfeiture order. Before the appeal from the revised sentence could be resolved, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which led us to ask the district court whether recognition of additional discretion would have affected the sentence. An affirmative answer led to another remand and a reduction in the term of imprisonment from 151 to 132 months. Fadeyi has filed a third appeal. The only argument now advanced is that, even though Booker reduced the Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status, the district court must use a reasonable-doubt standard when resolving any contested factual issue. That argument is inconsistent with the intellectual foundations of Booker, which held that the Constitution requires an elevated standard (and an opportunity, here waived, for decision by a jury) on disputes that raise the "statutory maximum No. 06-1533 Page 2 sentence." The remedial portion of Booker removed the Guidelines from the set of matters that can change the statutory maximum. The burden of persuasion in federal sentencing accordingly is the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Bryant, 420 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Spence, 450 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 2006). Affirmed
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
