Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03864/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03864-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John A. Anthony
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2010

    Decided July 22, 2010      

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3864

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JOHN A. ANTHONY,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08‐CR‐288

Lynn Adelman,

Judge.

O R D E R

When police officers responded to a call of shots fired, a woman in the crowd

pointed them to John Anthony, and a patdown revealed a gun in his pants pocket.  A

custodial search then revealed 5.46 grams of crack in his other pocket.  Anthony pleaded

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and to possessing

crack with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).  The district court sentenced him as a

career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but went below the guidelines range of 188 to 235

months and imposed a sentence of 126 months’ imprisonment.  Anthony filed a notice of

appeal.  But he does not wish to withdraw his guilty plea, and appointed counsel cannot

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3864 Document: 17 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3864 Page 2

find a basis to challenge the sentence and seeks permission to withdraw.  See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670‐71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Anthony has not commented on counsel’s motion even though he was invited to do so.  See

CIR. R. 51(b).  We limit our review to the issues identified by counsel in her facially adequate

brief.  United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel notes that there is no question that the guidelines range was properly

calculated and that Anthony’s below‐guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness.  See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Jackson, 598

F.3d 340, 345 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir. 2008).

Counsel considers whether Anthony could overcome that presumption by arguing that the

district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  See

United States v. Singleton, 588 F.3d 497, 500‐01 (7th Cir. 2009).  Counsel concludes, however,

that any such challenge would be frivolous.  Here, the district court credited Anthony’s

asserted mitigating factors to some extent, acknowledging the relatively minor nature of

offenses that led to his designation as a career offender, his positive educational and

parenting traits, and his family’s efforts at cooperating with the government.  The court

concluded, however, that an even lower sentence was not warranted because of the serious

nature of the crimes (Anthony was intoxicated while carrying a gun in a volatile area) and

Anthony’s history of violence (his criminal history included convictions for assault, resisting

the police, and smashing his ex‐girlfriend’s car).  The court’s careful consideration of the

factors in § 3553(a) leaves Anthony no basis for an appeal.  See United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d

605, 610 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 341 (2009).

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

Case: 09-3864 Document: 17 Filed: 07/22/2010 Pages: 2