# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d May 16, 2014 * Deci ded Jun e 3, 2014 Before RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge DANIEL A. MANIO N, Circ uit Judge ILANA DIAM OND ROVNER, Circ uit Judge No. 13-3645 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. DYTANIEL L. MCBRIDE, Defen dant-Appellant

. Ap p e al f r o m t heU n ite dS t a te s

D i str i ct C ou r t f o r t h eC en tr al D i s tr i ct o f I lli no i s . No. 10-10124-01 James E. Shadi d, Chief Ju dge

.

O R D E R Dytani el McBride w as convi cted of drug o ffens es, cons pi racy t o launder money, and arson, and was sentenced to li fe for the dr ug offenses and 20 years (to be serv ed concu rr ently) for each of the other two offenses. In McBri de’s fi rst appeal we accepted the go ver nment’s confessi on of sentencing err or , or dered M cBri de acqui tte d of the NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Thi s su cces si ve appeal has been s ubm i tte d to t he origi nal panel u nder Oper atin g * Procedure 6(b).No. 13-3645 Page 2

arson charge, and r emanded for resentenci ng on the t hree r emai ni ng counts of convic tion. See Un ited States v. McBride, 724 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the di stric t court sentenced McBri de to 360 mo nths’ i mpri sonment on the drug o ffens es and 240 months’ for money launderi ng, to be served concurrent ly. McBride fi led a notic e of appeal, and hi s appoi nted att or ney, who also repr esented hi m i n hi s fi rst appeal and at the r esentencing, asserts that t he appeal i s fri vo lous and s eeks to wi thdraw under Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). McBride h as fi led four documents challengi ng counsel’s motion and rai sing addi tional i ssu es. See C I R
. R. 51(b) . Counsel’s s ubm i ssi on fully explai ns the nature of McBride’s case an d i ntelli gently di scu ssespotent i al chall enges to t he di stric t court ’s ruli ngs. Becaus e the analysi s in the brief appears to be t horo ugh, we li mi t our rev i ew to t he subjects that couns el has di scu ssed an d the i ssu es rai sed by McBri de. See Un ited States v. Bey, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Ci r. 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Ci r. 1996). Antic i patin g McBride’s responses , couns el fi rst consi ders whether McBride could challen ge t he meri ts of hi s convi cti ons or any other i ssu es outsi de the di stric t court ’s resentenci ng or der. M cBri de, i n hi s fi li ngs, does not contest his new s entence but argues that t he evidenc e was insu ffi ci ent to supp or t hi s convi cti ons, that a go ver nment wi tness offered per

jure d testim ony at hi s trial, an d that his atto rney was i neffec tive. Our 2013 opin i on affi rmed the dis tr i ct court’s j udgment i n all respects except for t he two sentencing i ssu es that were r emanded. We thus agr ee wi th counsel’s conclu si on that potent i al arguments outsi de those arising from M cBri de’s resentencing would be fri vo lous. Counsel next questi ons whether McBride c ould argue t hat the court err ed i n calc ulati ng hi s newsentence. Couns el corr ectly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. The di stric t court, rely i ng on our earlier opin i on, appli ed a tot al offense level of 40 and a cri mi nal hi stor y categ or y of IV. Thi s yi elded a gui deli nes i mpri sonment range o f 360 months to li fe for the dr ug convic tions , and 240 months f or the money-launderin g convicti on. McBride requested a sentence of 20 years, the statuto ry mi ni mumfor t he drug counts, arguing that drug laws are mor e puni tive that those for other cri mes and that a lo wer sentence wi ll less en the cost of im pris oni ng hi m whi le sti ll keepin g hi m i n pri son unti l ret i rement ag e when hi s ri sk of recid i vis m wi ll be lower. M cBri de cannot poin t to anythin g inthe re cord to rebut the pr esum ption of reasonableness w e afford wi thi n-gui deli nes s entences. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Smi th , 721 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir. 2013). And b eforeNo. 13-3645 Page 3

i mposing the new sentence the di stric t court consi dered t he sentencing factors enumerated in18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), i nclu di ng the natur e of the o ffens es, McBri de’s si gni fi cant cri mi nal hi stor y, the cost t o im pris on hi m, and hi s age. Counsel finally consi ders whether McBride could argue that t he di stric t court err ed when i t or dered himto submi t to drug t esti ng not mo re t han si x times a month whi le on supervis ed release. Because McBri de was c onvicted of drug-relate d offenses and the di stric t court appropr i ately speci fi ed a maxi mumnumb er o f tests, see Un ited States v. Gutierrez-Ceja , 711 F.3d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 2013); United S tat es v. Tejeda , 476 F.3d 471, 473–74 (7th Ci r. 2007), we agre e wi th counsel that any challenge would b e fri vo lous. Further , any challenge to t he spec i al condi tions would be w ai ved because McBride di d not contest t hem during hi s fi rst appeal. See Un ited States v. Whit low , 740 F.3d 433, 438–39 (7th Cir. 2014). McBride als o ex plai ns that he would argue that he r ecei ved ineffecti ve assi stance from counsel du ring hi s fi rst appeal. We agr ee wi th the lawyer that clai ms of ineffec tive assi stance are best rais ed i n a collateral at tack where t he recor d can b e develo ped. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Massa ro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003); United S tat es v. Harris , 394 F.3d 543, 557–58 (7th Cir. 2005). Fin ally, McBride rai ses the potential argument that t he di stric t court err ed when i t deni ed hi s moti ons for new trial and judi ci al notic e fi led whi le thi s appeal w as pendi ng. Thi s argument would be fri vo lous bec ause i t is outsi de the scope of McBride’s appeal, but we di scu ss i t briefly. Th e di stric t court struck McBride’s m otions for new tr i al and judi ci al notic e, reasoning that i t lacked j uri sdi cti on to consi der t hem wh i le McBride’s appeal was pending. That i s not qui te r i ght; t he di stric t court had juris di cti on to deny the motion for new tr i al whi le McBride's appeal was pending, but could not gr ant the mot i on unless thi s court remanded the case. See F E D
. R. C RI M
. P. 33(b ); F E D
. R. A P P
. P. 12.1; United S tat es v. Blankenship , 970 F.2d 283, 285 (7th Cir. 1992). Bec ause McBride w as represented by counsel, the di stric t court also could have rej ected hi s pro se fi lings on that basi s. See Un ited States v. Pa tterson , 576 F.3d 431, 436–37 (7th Cir. 2009). And the deni al di d not pr ejudic e McBride b ecaus e he may renew hi s moti on for new tr i al in the di stric t court
. See F E D
. R. C RI M
. P. 33(b) (1) ( defendant mu st fi le motion wi thi n three year s after fi ndi ng of guilty). We GRANTcouns el’s motion to wi thdraw and DISMISS the appeal.