dissenting. I would hold this case until the Supreme Court decides the issues presently before it in United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2004). I see nothing to be gained by compounding the already existing chaos caused by Blakely v. Washington, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) in sending this case back to the docket of a busy district court.

ORDER

In his petition for rehearing filed on July 14, 2004, Butler contends that the district court, which made factual determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines by a preponderance of the evidence, violated his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury decide factual issues that would increase his sentence. In United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508 (7th Cir. 2004), we held that, under Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), such a practice is unconstitutional. Therefore the petition for rehearing is GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in light of Blakely and Booker. See United States v. Shearer, 379 F.3d 453, 455 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Singletary, 379 F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Ohlinger, 377 F.3d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 2004).