ORDER

After concluding that Kevin Schmeilski’s conviction should be affirmed, we ordered a limited remand so that the district court could determine whether it believed the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has relegated the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district court judge has replied that he would impose the same sentence today knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory. Therefore, “we will affirm the original sentence against [Schmeilski’s] plain error challenge provided the sentence is reasonable, the standard of review prescribed by Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765.” Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484.

On July 1, 2005, we invited the parties to file, within seven days, any arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court’s decision. That time has now passed. We received a submission from the government but not from Schmeilski.

Schmeilski received a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range. 1 There *742 fore, the sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The district court judge explained his belief that the sentence was required to reflect the seriousness of Schmeilski’s conduct, as well as to protect the three minor stepchildren Schmeilski sexually exploited and the community. We see no reason why the sentence should be deemed “unreasonable.” Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.