
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin T. ROMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-1264.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2005.
    
    Decided Aug. 11, 2005.
    John G. McKenzie, Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Jonathan E. Hawley, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       After an examination of 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).
    
   ORDER

Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute the marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm by a felon, id. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government.

Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and contends that a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), is necessary. For its part the government asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the Booker issue, and we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, Booker notwithstanding. See United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636—37 (7th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 606 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 615 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir.2005). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.  