A Booker double-header from the Seventh Circuit

Providing still more weekend reading for Booker fans, the Seventh Circuit today released two Booker opinions of note: US v. Robinson, No. 05-2224 (7th Cir. Jan. 13, 2006) (available here); US v Jordan, No. 05-1296 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2006) (available here).  These cases — which have names that remind me I really should be spending more time at ESPN and less at USSC — provide a notable bookend to the reasonableness rulings of the Ninth Circuit in Cantrell and the Eleventh Circuit in Williams today.

Here are too-short accounts of two important decisions for folks in the Seventh Circuit.

• In Robinson, the Seventh Circuit emphasizes its views of a district court's sentencing obligations after Booker, and finds the district court "erred as a matter of law by failing to resolve a disputed sentencing fact essential to a properly calculated guidelines range." 

• In Jordan, the Seventh Circuit affirms a "significant upward variance from the advisory guidelines range," after finding that the district court's reasons were "quite compelling to satisfy reasonableness review."  Among the important aspects of Jordan is the court's clarification that "there is no presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to a sentence that varies from the range."