Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03310/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03310-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dustin T. McClaskey
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. 09‐3310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

DUSTIN T. MCCLASKEY,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 08–cr‐10077‐001

Joe Billy McDade,

Judge.

O R D E R

Dustin McClaskey pleaded guilty to one count each of possessing and producing

child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), 2251(a), and to a forfeiture count stemming

from those offenses, id. § 2253(a), (b).  The district court imposed concurrent sentences of

120 months’ imprisonment on the possession charge (the statutory maximum), id.

§ 2252A(b)(2), and 180 months’ imprisonment on the production charge (the mandatory

minimum), id. § 2251(e), followed by a lifelong term of supervised release.  McClaskey

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

withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  McClaskey did not respond to our

invitation to comment on counsel’s submission, see CIR. R. 51(b).  Considering only the issue

presented in counsel’s facially adequate brief, see United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74

(7th Cir. 2002), we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3310 Document: 13 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3310 Page 2

McClaskey does not want his guilty plea vacated, so counsel appropriately refrains

from discussing possible arguments about the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of

the plea colloquy. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671‐72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Instead, the sole issue identified by counsel is whether McClaskey could challenge

his prison or supervised‐release terms on grounds of reasonableness.  Counsel concludes

that any argument along these lines would be frivolous, and we agree.  McClaskey’s 180‐

month prison term was the minimum sentence allowed under § 2251(e), and absent a

government motion to reduce the sentence based on substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e), the district court lacked authority to impose a lower term of imprisonment.

Regarding the period of supervised release, the statute authorizes a lifetime of supervision

for child pornography offenses, id. § 3583(k), and the policy statement accompanying the

relevant guidelines provision recommends that the maximum term be imposed in such

cases, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) (policy statement); United States v. Allison, 447 F.3d 402, 405

(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hayes, 445 F.3d 536, 537 (2d Cir. 2006).  Moreover, the district

court adequately considered not only this policy statement, but also the other factors

required by § 3583(c) and § 3553(a), including McClaskey’s relation to the victims, see

§ 3553(a)(1).  Because the district court properly applied the guidelines and § 3553(a) in

determining the duration of McClaskey’s supervised release, we would presume that

determination to be reasonable, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).  And since

counsel gives us no reason to rebut that presumption, any challenge to McClaskey’s

sentence would be frivolous.

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

Case: 09-3310 Document: 13 Filed: 05/13/2010 Pages: 2