
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance MCCARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Oct. 12, 2005.
    Patrick Pope, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael J. Petro, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BAUER, POSNER, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

We ordered a limited remand to ask whether the district judge, had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory, would have imposed the same sentence on Terrance McCarter. See United States v. Booker, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005). She answered that she would.

We invited the parties to respond, but only McCarter did. Here, the sentencing range was properly calculated under the guidelines, so the sentence was presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). McCarter, however, points to nothing to rebut that presumption except a comment by the judge at sentencing that the punishment was “particularly harsh” in light of his recent attempts to turn over a new leaf. But the judge also explained that the crime, which involved forcing a woman into a car at gunpoint and pointing the gun at someone else, was serious enough to warrant the sentence she gave. The sentence is reasonable, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.  