# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 9 , 2016 Decided November 10 , 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD , C hief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM , Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES , Circuit Judge

No. 16

- 1414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v

.
JERROD D. PATTERSON , Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No. 15

- CR

- 74

- 4

- JPS

J. P. Stadtmueller , Judge

.

O R D E R
For several years Jerrod Patterson conspired with other Gangster Disciples to sell heroin and other drugs in Ken osha, Wisconsin. Federal authorities broke up the ring in early 2015, but Patterson fled and remained a fugitive for almost six months. After he was caught, Patterson pleaded guilty to distributing heroin , 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1 ) , and

was sentenced below the guideline s ’ imprisonment range to 125 month s to be followed by three years of supervised release

. Patterson filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney moves to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 38 6 U.S. 738 (1967 ). Patterson has not accepted our invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51( b )

. Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the natu re of the case and addresses issues that a n app e al of this kind might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 16

- 1414 Page 2

our review to the subjects that counsel discusse s

. See United States v. Bey , 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996)

.
Counsel tells us that Patterson does not wish to challenge his guilty plea , and
t hus the lawyer appropriately forgoes d iscussing the voluntariness of the plea and adequacy of the plea colloquy

. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11; United States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox , 287 F .3d 667, 670

– 71 (7th Cir. 2002)

.
Counsel has not identified any potential procedural error at sentencing , leaving only the possible claim that Patterson’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. But as

c ounsel correctly recognizes, that claim w ould be frivolous. The district court, after finding that Patterson is a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, calculated a total offense level of 2 9 and a criminal history cate gory of VI . Patterson did not dispute these calculations, which yield ed an imprisonment range of 151 to 188 months and a recommended three

- year term of s upervised release

. Patterson’s below

- range prison sentence is presumed rea sonable, see Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Womack , 732 F.3d 745, 747 (7th Cir. 2013) , as is his within

guidelines term of supervised release, see United States v. Jones , 774 F.3d 399, 404 (7th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Shannon , 518 F.3d 494, 496

– 97 (7th Cir. 2008)

. Counsel has not identif ied any reason to rebut those presumptions, nor have we

. In determining the appropriate sentence, the district court addressed Patterson’s arguments in mitigation and evaluated the s entencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. The
court acknowledged Patterson’s addiction to drugs and difficult child hood

— his mother also was drug dependent and one brother was murdered

— but explained that these did
not excuse his “multiple contacts with the criminal justice system” or his decision to flee and remain a fugitive for months after he was indicted

. The court emphasize d the serious ness of his drug crime and the devastating effect of drugs on users, their families , and th e community

. Nevertheless, the court observed that incarceration is expensive and opined that too many persons are imprisoned for too long

. The court conclude d that, although 125 months i s longer than any sentence Patterson had received previously , a term of that length was necessary to protect the people of Kenosha from drug trafficking. Accordingly, an appellate claim challenging the reasonableness of Patterson’s prison sentence would be frivolous

.
One final note: Counsel does not mention two standard conditions of supervised release that the district court imposed and that we have criticized as problematic

. The condition prohibiting Patterson from leaving the judicial district without permission may improperly impose strict liability , see United States v. Brown , 823 F.3d 392, 395No. 16

- 1414 Page 3

(7th Cir. 2016), and the condition requiring him to follow his probation officer’s instructions doesn’t even hint at what those instructions might be and lacks a reasonableness qualification , United States v. Hill , 818 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 2016 )

. But counsel implies that Patterson does not wish to challenge these conditions , and we have no reason to believe otherwise. I f Patterson later perceives t hose conditions to be vague, confusing, or otherwise problematic , he may seek modification at that time. See Brown , 823 F.3d at 395 ; United States v. Neal , 810 F.3d 512, 518

– 20 (7th Cir. 2016)

.
C ounsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED

.