Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03453/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03453-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David L. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 12, 2010

Decided May 13, 2010

Before

                     KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

DAVID L. BROWN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:09‐CR‐10015‐001

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

David Brown pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50

grams of cocaine base.  See 21 U.S.C. § 846.  At Brown’s sentencing hearing the government

moved to reduce his sentence below the life‐time statutory minimum to reflect the value of

his assistance in the investigation and prosecution of other matters.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).

The district court granted that motion and sentenced Brown to 244 months’ imprisonment,

but refused to consider other mitigating factors to further reduce his sentence.  Brown

appeals, but his appointed counsel has concluded that his appeal is frivolous and moves to

withdraw.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  We invited Brown to respond to

counsel’s motion, but he has declined to do so.  See CIR. R. 51(b).  We limit our review to the

potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.  See United States v. Schuh, 289

F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3453 Document: 13 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3453 Page 2

Counsel initially advises that Brown does not want his guilty plea vacated, and thus

properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of

the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670‐71 (7th Cir. 2002).  

The only potential issue counsel identifies is whether Brown could challenge the

court’s refusal to further reduce his sentence for reasons other than his substantial

assistance.  But we agree that this contention would be frivolous.  As counsel notes, once a

district court decides that a defendant’s cooperation justifies a sentence below the statutory

floor, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the court may not rely upon other mitigating factors in

§ 3553(a) to further reduce the sentence.  United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 666, 672‐74 (7th

Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1115 (2010).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Case: 09-3453 Document: 13 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pages: 2