
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alina LIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-3959.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 2, 2007.
    
    Decided March 12, 2007.
    Brian P. Netols, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Martin A. Blumenthal, Northfield, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
    
   Order

We affirmed Lis’s conviction but remanded under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.2005), so that the district judge could tell us whether the additional discretion provided by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), would have affected the sentence. United States v. Feliciano, No. 02-4193 (7th Cir. June 16, 2005). The district judge’s affirmative answer led to a remand for full resentencing. United States v. Feliciano, 168 Fed.Appx. 743 (7th Cir.2006).

The range for Lis under the Sentencing Guidelines is 360 months to life in prison. On remand, the district judge resentenced Lis to 240 months, a substantial reduction from the previous sentence of 360 months and 10 years below the bottom of the range.

Lis has filed another appeal to contend that even 240 months is unreasonably high. Lis does not contend, however, that the district judge failed to appreciate any factor that properly influences a sentence after Booker. Instead the argument appears to be that the district judge erred in failing to recalculate the range under the Guidelines. That argument is difficult to grasp, as the range had been calculated earlier and was subject to review on the initial appeal. There was no need to start from scratch. The only argument counsel made on this score in the district court is that judges are not entitled to make findings of fact, or add levels, independent of the jury?s verdict. That argument is frivolous. The remedial portion of Booker holds that district judges are entitled to make findings provided that the Guidelines are advisory — which Booker made them. See United States v. Reuter, 463 F.3d 792 (7th Cir.2006).

A sentence of 240 months is not unreasonably high for Lis’s crime. See United States v. Bullion, 466 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2006).

Affirmed.  