# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ar ch 31, 20 10 Deci ded A pri l12 , 20 10 B efo re M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 2411 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. M O N T R E L L E JO H N SO N , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe Ea st ern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 06 CR 92 Ch ar l es Clev er t, Chie f Judg e . O R D E R M on t re l l e J ohns onp l ead ed gu i l ty t o on e c ou nto fc on s pi ra c y t o di s t ribute c oc ai ne , see 21 U
. S. C. §§ 841 (a)( 1), 846, but reserved the ri ghtt o c ont estthe type and quantity of th e dr ug s ats en t en c i ng . Aft era he ar i ng, the s en t en c i ngc ou rtc on c l ud ed tha tJ ohns onwas respon sible f or 28. 35 gram s of powder c ocai ne and 131 gram s of c rack c ocai ne, and s en t en c ed hi m t o 168 months ’ i mpri s on ment . J ohns onap pea l s, bu th i s ap po i nted c ou ns el ha s conclude d tha t hisap pe al is frivo lous an d m ov es to w ithdra w . SeeAnd ers v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U .S. 73 8 (1 96 7). Joh n so nh as res p on d ed to co u n se l’s m ot ion . SeeC IR . R. 51 (b ). W e lim it ou r review to the issue s iden tified in cou ns el’ s facial ly ad eq ua te brief an d i n John son ’s re sp on se . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). Because J ohnson tol d counselthathe w ants hi s guil ty ple a s et asi de, co unselfi rs t ad d re ss es w h et h er th er e is an y b as is t o c h alle n ge th e p lea
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 28 7 NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2411 Page 2

F. 3d 667, 67 1- 72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. W e a gr ee w i th co unselthatany such chal l enge w oul d be fri vol ous b ecause the ple a co l l oquy s ubstanti al l y c om pli ed w i th Fe deralRule o fCri m i nal P ro c ed u re 11
. Se eSchuh , 2 89 F
. 3d at9 75 . Co uns elpo i nt s o utmin o ro m i ss i o ns i n the col l oquy, but cor re ctl y e xplains thattheywould be harm l ess . As counselnot es, the dist ri ct cour t di d not m enti on J ohnson’ s r i ght t o an at torney a t e ver y s tag e o fthe proce edi ngs, see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 ( b) ( 1) ( D), but J ohnson coul d not hav e be en prej ud i ced by thi s e rr or b ec au se h e w as ac c om p an ied by ap p oin te d co u n se l d u rin g th e c olloq u y, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Lovett, 84 4 F
. 2d 487, 49 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88)
. Counselal so note s that the co urt did notadvi se Joh n so nth atit co u ld ord er h im to forfe it th e p ro c ee d s o f h is d ru g d ea lin g, see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 ( b) ( 1) ( J ) , but, l i kewis e, thi s o m i ssi on would be har m l ess bec ause the g ove rnm ent ne ver re q u es te d forfe itu re , see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 (h ); Sc hu h, 289 F. 3d at 975. Last, co unsel o bs er ve s th atthe c o ur t f ai l ed to war n J o hns o n tha t i t co ul d de vi at e upwar d fr o m the se n te n c in g g u id elin es , see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 (b )(1) (M ), bu t th e c ou rtse n te n c ed h im w ith in th e g u id elin e ra n ge , so th is e rro r w ou ld be h ar m les s a s w ell, see U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 368 F.3d 963 , 968-69 (7th C ir. 2004). N ext, co unselquesti ons w hetherJ ohnson coul d argue thatthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts di sc r et i o n b y r efus i ngt o l ethi m wi th dr aw hi s g ui l typl ea . A few months a fte rpl ea di ng gu ilty , Joh n so nso u gh t t o w ith d ra w h is p lea be c au se h is t ria l co u n se l ha d n otgiv en h im all th e co m pac t di sc s o fr ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o ns wi thhi s co co ns pi r at o r s. He be l i ev ed th atthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se aga i nst hi m was w eak

— nam el y, the cre dibi l i ty ofa potenti al g o ve r nm en t wi tn es s was que st i o nabl e. T he di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed hi s m o ti o n, obs er ving that J ohnson had not pr ese nted any evi dence to sho w thathi s pl ea w as i nvol untaryo r unknow i ng, and that hi s pl ea w as supp or ted byte sti m ony at the Rul e 1 1 hea ring atwh i ch he adm i tte d to bro ker i ng drug tr ansact i ons w hi l e incarc er ate d. W e a gr ee w i th co unselthat chal l engi ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on would be fri vol ous. A dist ri ct c ourti s e nti tl ed to h old th e d efe n d an t t o h is s ta te m en ts atth e R u le 1 1 h ea rin g, as th e c ou rtd id h er e. Se eSh uh, 38 9 F
. 3d at9 75 . And fur th er, J o hns o n’ s r ea ss es smentabo utthe s tr en g tho fthe go ve rn m en t’s ca se d oe s n oten tit le h im to w ith d ra w h is p lea
. See B rad y v . U nited Sta tes, 397 U .S. 74 2, 75 7 (1 97 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bryant, 557F.3d 48 9, 49 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si l va , 122 F.3d 41 2, 41 5 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ). Counsel ’ s next i nquir y i s s om ew hat obl i que, but see m s t o consi der whether J ohnson coul d argue thathe c oul d not be co nvi cted o fco nspir acy because he was nei thera buyer no ra s el l er . As co uns elc o r r ec tly r ec o g ni ze s, ho wev er, the l aw do es no t l i m i t a dr ug c on sp ira c y t o b u ye rs an d se llers
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Payt on , 328 F.3d 910 , 911-12 (7th C ir. 20 03 ) (co llec tin g c as es ).N o. 08
- 2411 Page 3

Counsel next consi ders var i ous c hal l enges to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence . F i rs t, counselco nsi ders w hetherJ ohnson coul d contes t the co urt’ s deni alo fa re du cti on for ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility
. SeeU
. S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1. But i t would be fri vol ous forJ ohnson to ar g ue tha t he was e nt i tl ed to s ucha r edu ct i o n a fte rhe mai nt aine d hi s i nno ce nc e when he m ove d to w i thdraw his gui l ty ple a. S e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo pi ns ki, 240 F.3d 574 , 576 (7th C ir. 2007 ). Secon d , cou ns el consid ers w he th er Johns on cou ld ch all en ge th e cou rt’s d et er m in at ion of re lev an t c on d u c t— sp ec ifica lly, th e c ou rt ’s fin d in g th ath e w as res p on sib le f orthr ee add i ti onaltr ansact i ons. A defe nd ant e ngage d i n a j ointl y undert ake n cr i m i nal ac tiv ity is liab le for all rea so n ab ly for es ee ab le a c ts p er for m ed in fu rt h er an c e o f th e join tly u n d er ta ke ncr im in al a c t, seeU .S.S.G . § 1B 1.3 ; U nited Sta tes v. A rtley, 489 F. 3d 813, 82 2 ( 7th C ir.), cert. denied, 55 2 U. S
. 9 65 ( 20 07 )
. We a g r ee wi thc o uns eltha t a ch al l en g e to r el ev an t conduct w oul d be fri vol ous b ecause the thre e t ra nsacti ons w er e r eas onabl y for ese eabl e t o hi m , since he— w hi l e incarc er ate d— hi re d his gi rl fri end’s bro thero n thr ee separ ate occa si ons, i nstr ucted the bro therto co nver t powd erco cai ne i nto cra ck, and re cei ved p ay m en t fro m th e s ale
. T h ird , cou n se l qu es tio n s w h et h er Joh n so n co u ld co n te stth e c alc u lat ion of h is cri m i nalhi sto ry . J ohnson re cei ved thr ee cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts forco nvi cti ons oftr espass , dam age to pro perty, bat ter y, bai lj um ping, and dis or derl y c onduct, and none o fthes e c on vic tio n s c ar rie d a te rm of im p ris on m en t fo r m or e th an on e y ea r an d on e m on th
. General l y, i fa convi cti on does notexce ed one yea r and one m onth, o nl y tw o cri m i nal h ist or y p oin ts are ap p ro p ria te . See U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( a)
. But J ohnson re cei ved co nsecuti ve se nt en ce s f o rthe c ha r g es o fda m ag e to pr o per ty, b at te r y, a nd b ai lj um pi ng, a nd the i m posi ti on o fco nsecuti ve sente nces re quir es an ag gr ega te sente nce o fi m pri sonm ent, see U .S.S.G . § 4A 1.2 (a)( 2); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jos eph , 5 0 F
. 3d 40 1, 4 02 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5)
. Be ca us e th e aggrega te sen ten ce ex ceed ed one year an d one m ont h, any ch all en ge to his crim inal history w oul d be fri vol ous. Four th, co unselco nsi ders w hetherJ ohnson coul d chal l enge hi s s entence as un reason able. W e agree th at an y suc h ch all en ge w ou ld be fri volous. T he district cou rt co r r ec tlyc al cul at ed J o hns o n’ s r ec o m m en ded g ui del i ne s r an g e at1 68 t o 2 10 months , a nd se n te n c ed h im to th e b ot to m of th e g u id elin es ran ge . W e woul d pr es um e r ea so nabl e any se n te n c e fa llin g w ith inth e p ro p er ly c alc u lat ed gu id elin es ran ge . See R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 347 (2007 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 6 0 6 , 6 0 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. A t s e n t e n c in g, th e c o u r ta p p r o p r i a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d th e n a tu r e a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s o fth e c r i me as req u ire d u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a), ta kin g in to ac c ou n t Jo h n so n ’s d ru g d ea lin g fro m j ail;N o. 08
- 2411 Page 4

th e n u m b er of tr an sa c tio n s in vo lve d ; his cr im in al h ist or y of m isd em ea n or offe n se s; an d h is p re ss u rin g h is gir lfrien d ’s b ro th er int o d ea lin g d ru gs . Fift h, cou n se l co n sid er s w h et h er Joh n so n co u ld qu es tio n th e d at e o n w h ich h is sente nce be gan. But o nl y the Bureau o fPri sons has a uthor i ty to deter m i ne wh en a federa l se n te n c e b eg in s. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 503 U
. S. 329, 335 (1992 ); U nite d States v. H il l , 48 F.3 d 22 8, 23 4 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ). Last, co unsel( and Jo hnson i n hi s Rul e 5 1(b) r esponse ) al so consi ders w hether J ohnson coul d argue thathi s t ri alco unselwas i neffecti ve. But a cl ai m o fineffecti ve as sis ta n c e is be stp u rs u ed on co llat er al re vie w so th ata m or e c om p let e re c or d ca n be m ad e. See M a ssaro v. U nited Sta tes , 538 U .S. 50 0, 50 4-0 5 (2 00 3); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l s on , 48 1 F
. 3d 475, 485 (7th Cir. 2007). A c c or d in gly , w e G R A N T co u n se l’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w an d D ISM ISS th e a p p ea l.