Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02680/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02680-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul W. Stewart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 23, 2016

Decided May 25, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

PAUL W. STEWART,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District   

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 15‐CR‐02

James D. Peterson,

Judge.

O R D E R

After selling heroin to undercover officers, Paul Stewart pleaded guilty to one

count of possessing heroin with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district

court determined that Stewart was a career offender, see 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), and

sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the calculated guidelines

range. Stewart filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer, who also represented

Stewart in the district court, asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Stewart has not accepted our invitation to

respond to counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Counsel has submitted a brief that

explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that an appeal of this kind

might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in counsel’s brief appears to be

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-2680 Document: 15 Filed: 05/25/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15‐2680    Page 2

thorough, we limit our review to the subjects discussed by counsel. 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).   

Counsel first considers whether Stewart could challenge the voluntariness of his

guilty plea or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. Counsel does not say, however, if he

consulted Stewart about challenging his conviction on this ground. See United States v.

Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349–50 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71

(7th Cir. 2002). Regardless, our own review of the record persuades us that any challenge

to the plea would be frivolous. The transcript demonstrates that the district court

substantially complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

See Konczak, 683 F.3d at 349; United States v. Bowlin, 534 F.3d 654, 656–57 (7th Cir. 2008).

The court neglected to mention the possibility of forfeiture or restitution, see FED. R.

CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(J), (K), but the omission was inconsequential because the court did not

impose these financial penalties. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 975 (7th Cir.

2002); United States v. Fox, 941 F.2d 480, 484–85 (7th Cir. 1991).   

Counsel next considers whether Stewart could argue that his 151‐month prison

term is substantively unreasonable but correctly concludes that such a challenge would

be frivolous. The court imposed the lowest sentence recommended by the guidelines,

and within‐guidelines prison sentences are presumed reasonable on appellate review.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Martinez, 650 F.3d 667, 671

(7th Cir. 2011). Counsel has not identified any reason to question the presumption of

reasonableness, nor have we. Counsel acknowledges that the district court weighed the

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in particular Stewart’s “extensive” criminal

history (noting that defendant’s criminal history in the last 10 years has “shown a

commitment to a life of crime”), the seriousness of his offense (stating that his drug

crimes involved aggressive, violent behavior including the use of a BB gun), and the

need to provide him with educational or vocational training (acknowledging that

Stewart likely had chosen a life of crime because he did not have job skills or job history

that would enable him to secure conventional employment).   

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

Case: 15-2680 Document: 15 Filed: 05/25/2016 Pages: 2