Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01361/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01361-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Chavis Webster
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 25, 2010

Decided August 25, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No.  10‐1361

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

CHAVIS WEBSTER,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 09‐CR‐112‐C‐01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Chavis Webster pleaded guilty to distributing heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was

sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 36 months of supervised release.

Webster filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer seeks to withdraw because he

cannot identify any nonfrivolous ground for appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967).  We confine our review to the potential issues identified in counselʹs facially

adequate brief and Webster’s response.  See CIR. R. 51(b); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968,

973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first addresses whether Webster could challenge his guilty plea.  But

Webster did not respond when counsel asked if he wants his guilty plea set aside, nor has

Webster expressed dissatisfaction with the plea in his Rule 51(b) response.  There is no basis

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1361 Document: 18 Filed: 08/25/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10‐1361 Page 2

to conclude that Webster wishes to rescind his plea, so counsel need not have explored the

adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287

F.3d 667, 671‐72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel next examines whether Webster could challenge his prison sentence, but

counsel has not identified any potential issue apart from a claim that the term is

unreasonable.  Counsel does not see even a colorable argument about the guidelines

calculations, and though in his Rule 51(b) response Webster proposes to argue that he

should not have received a two‐level upward adjustment for possession of a firearm, see

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), that contention is waived because it was presented and then

expressly abandoned at sentencing, see United States v. Canady, 578 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir.

2009), United States v. Jaimes‐Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2005).  And as far as the

length of the prison term, a reasonableness argument would be frivolous because the

district court sentenced Watkins to 216 months’ imprisonment—19 months below the

bottom of the guidelines range—and counsel cannot articulate any basis to challenge the

presumption of reasonableness that applies. See United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743, 746 (7th

Cir. 2010); United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir. 2008).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.  

Case: 10-1361 Document: 18 Filed: 08/25/2010 Pages: 2