Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03496/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cardell D. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-3496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CARDELL D. BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:11-CR-30186-DRH-1 — David R. Herndon, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED MAY 13, 2016 — DECIDED MAY 17, 2016

____________________

Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. In 2012 Cardell Brown pled 

guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 2250(a), and was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed 

by 60 months of supervised release. Within months of being 

released from prison, Brown was arrested by Illinois authorities for violating the state’s sex-offender registration law, 730 

ILCS 150/3(a). He pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months 

Case: 15-3496 Document: 10 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 5
2 No. 15-3496

in state prison. Brown’s federal probation officer then petitioned the district court to revoke his supervised release, 

see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), citing Brown’s state case and his 

failure to submit timely supervision reports on five occasions. 

Brown admitted the allegations. The district court revoked his 

supervised release, ordered him to serve an additional 

12 months in prison (consecutive to his new state sentence)

and imposed a 10-year term of supervised release. Brown 

filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney asserts that 

the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a revocation 

proceeding when, as here, the defendant admits violating the 

conditions of his supervision and neither challenges the appropriateness of revocation nor asserts substantial and complex grounds in mitigation. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 

778, 790–91 (1973); United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 

1163, 1171 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 

930, 932–33 (7th Cir. 2006). The Anders safeguards thus do not 

govern our review of counsel’s motion to withdraw, see Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 554–55 (1987); United States v. 

Wheeler, 814 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2016), though we follow 

them to ensure consideration of potential issues. We invited 

Brown to comment on counsel’s motion, but he has not responded. See Cir. R. 51(b). Counsel has submitted a brief that 

explains the nature of the case and addresses the potential issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. 

The analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, so we focus 

our review on the subjects that counsel discusses. See United 

States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. 

Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Case: 15-3496 Document: 10 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15-3496 3

Counsel first questions whether Brown could challenge 

the calculation of his reimprisonment range. Brown did not 

object to the district court’s application of the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, so our 

review would be limited to plain error. See Wheeler, 814 F.3d 

at 857; United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657, 661, 664 (7th Cir. 

2007). The new offense that Brown admitted committing—

failing to register a change of address as a sex offender—was 

punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year, 

see 730 ILCS 150/3(a), 10(a); id. 5/5-4.5-40(a), and thus was a 

Grade B violation of his federal supervised release. 

See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). The court correctly determined that 

the recommended range of reimprisonment—based on the 

Category III criminal history at the time of Brown’s original 

sentencing and his Grade B violation—was 8 to 14 months. 

See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court’s order that Brown 

serve the term of federal reimprisonment after his new state 

sentence is also consistent with the relevant policy statement. 

See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Counsel also considers but rightly rejects a challenge to 

the reasonableness of the term of reimprisonment. As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court took into account the 

pertinent sentencing factors in § 3553(a), including the nature 

and circumstances of the violation (opining that failing to register as a sex offender is a “very serious crime”), Brown’s history and characteristics (noting his multiple convictions for 

sex offenses involving children and his frequent parole violations), and the need to encourage Brown to comply with the 

court’s orders. We would not find the new term of reimprisonment to be plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Jones, 

774 F.3d 399, 404–05 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Neal, 512 

F.3d 427, 438 (7th Cir. 2008).

Case: 15-3496 Document: 10 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 5
4 No. 15-3496

Finally, counsel considers but dismisses as frivolous a potential argument that the new term of supervised release is 

unlawful or plainly unreasonable. The statute for the underlying conviction authorized a lifetime term of supervision, so 

the 10-year term of supervised release the judge imposed on 

revocation was within the permissible range. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(k); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2). And, in light of the district 

court’s discussion of Brown’s history and characteristics, we 

would not find the new term of supervised release plainly unreasonable. 

Counsel does not mention two standard conditions of supervised release that the district court imposed and that we 

have criticized as vague. First, we have said that language requiring Brown to notify his probation officer of any change in 

employment leaves unclear whether this condition applies 

only to “‘changing employers or also includes changing from 

one position to another for the same employer at the same 

workplace.’” See United States v. Hill, No. 15-3090, — F.3d —,

2016 WL 1381248, at *2–3 (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016), quoting

United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368, 379 (7th Cir. 2015). Second, the condition prohibiting Brown from leaving the judicial district without permission lacks a scienter requirement 

and so could improperly impose strict liability. See Wheeler, 

814 F.3d at 858; United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 849–50 

(7th Cir. 2015).

That being said, we have no reason to believe that Brown 

wishes to challenge these conditions, as counsel has not identified them as potential issues and Brown has not responded 

to our invitation to comment on counsel’s brief. See United 

States v. Bryant, 754 F.3d 443, 447 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, if 

Brown perceives these conditions to be vague, confusing, or 

Case: 15-3496 Document: 10 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15-3496 5

burdensome after he begins serving the term of supervised 

release, he would be free to seek modification under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(2). See United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 518–20 (7th 

Cir. 2016).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Case: 15-3496 Document: 10 Filed: 05/17/2016 Pages: 5