Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03724/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03724-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald J. Ballard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted March 24, 2010

Decided March 26, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

                   ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

                              JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

REGINALD J. BALLARD,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 09‐CR‐66‐C‐01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Reginald J. Ballard pleaded guilty to a two‐count indictment for bank robbery

(“Count I”), 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and knowing and intentional brandishment of a firearm

during a crime of violence (“Count II”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and the district court sentenced

him to 130 months’ imprisonment.  Ballard appeals, but his appointed lawyer moves to

withdraw because she believes that his appeal is frivolous.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967).  Ballard has not responded to counsel’s motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), and so we limit

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3724 Document: 11 Filed: 03/26/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3724 Page 2

our review to the potential arguments identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief, see

United States v. Cano‐Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2009).

Ballard has not indicated that he wishes to challenge his plea, and so counsel

properly refrains from considering the adequacy of Ballard’s plea colloquy or the

voluntariness of his plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel considers only one potential argument—whether Ballard could challenge

his sentence.  We agree with counsel that any such challenge would be frivolous.  At

sentencing, the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines range of 57 to 71

months for Count I (based on a total offense level of 19 and a criminal history category of V)

and a seven‐year mandatory minimum for Count II.  Based on the government’s request for

a sentence reduction for Ballard’s substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district

court imposed a below‐guidelines sentence of 46 months for Count I and a consecutive

seven‐year sentence for Count II.  The below‐guidelines sentence the court

chose is presumptively reasonable, see United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir.

2008), and counsel suggests nothing to rebut that presumption.  Moreover, the district court

adequately examined the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), considering, among other things,

Ballard’s struggles with heroin addiction, his history of petty crimes, the seriousness of his

crime that put “many, many people in distress,” and the need to protect the community

from further crimes by Ballard.

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

Case: 09-3724 Document: 11 Filed: 03/26/2010 Pages: 2