Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03784/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03784-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John High
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 25, 2010∗

 Decided June 9, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN HIGH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 07-CR-91-C-01

Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

Order

We affirmed John High’s conviction but vacated his sentence after concluding 

that he is not covered by the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §924(e). See 576 

F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2009). High’s original sentence was 212 months’ imprisonment; our 

decision meant that the maximum possible sentence was 120 months.

On remand, the district court imposed a 120-month sentence. High’s Guideline 

range was above the statutory maximum, and the district judge stated that she thought 

the original sentence appropriate with or without an armed-career-criminal 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3784 Document: 17 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-3784 Page 2

enhancement. Our opinion had observed that the district judge was free to consider the 

conduct that led to High’s earlier convictions, for whatever that conduct revealed about 

his character and prospects for recidivism, even though two of his four earlier felony 

convictions did not meet the statutory definition of “violent felonies.” The district court 

took this conduct into account, as it was entitled to do.

High’s lawyer has filed an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 264 

(1967). Counsel observed that, because our 2009 opinion rejected challenges to the 

conviction, only errors on remand in imposing the sentence would create non-frivolous 

issues for appeal. But the fact that the 120-month sentence is below the Guideline range, 

and that the district court thought that application of the statutory factors (see 18 U.S.C. 

§3553(a)) would justify a sentence exceeding 200 months, made it impossible to frame a 

non-frivolous issue for appeal. We agree with counsel’s assessment.

High has filed a response to counsel’s brief. See Circuit Rule 51. Most of this 

statement expresses dissatisfaction with counsel’s performance in the district court, and 

during and after his initial appeal (particularly counsel’s decision not to file a petition for 

a writ of certiorari). Such arguments are not appropriate for direct appeal; they should 

be raised by a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 

(2003). High’s contention that a sentence of 120 months is unreasonably high is 

frivolous. Our prior opinion made it clear that a 120-month sentence would be lawful; 

we do not see any reason to think otherwise today.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as 

frivolous.

Case: 09-3784 Document: 17 Filed: 06/09/2010 Pages: 2