*

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 3, 2006*

Decided November 21, 2006

Before

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06-1694

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BABAJIDE SOBITAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 03 CR 450

John W. Darrah, 

Judge.

O R D E R

 Babajide Sobitan was convicted of attempting to reenter the United States

without authorization after having been deported, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Over

Sobitan’s objection and in contradiction of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), the district court sentenced him as though the sentencing guidelines were

mandatory. The district court imposed a sentence of 97 months’ imprisonment, a

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 06-1694 Page 2

sentence at the high end of the applicable range. We remanded the case for

resentencing and the district court imposed an identical sentence. Sobitan has

appealed that sentence, but his counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and contends that the appeal should be dismissed because Sobitan

has no non-frivolous arguments. Sobitan has responded to counsel’s brief. See Cir.

R. 51(b). Accordingly, we review only the potential issues identified in counsel's

brief and Sobitan's response. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th

Cir. 2002).

Counsel contends that any argument posed by Sobitan concerning the

reasonableness of his sentence would be frivolous. First, he points out that the

district court correctly calculated Sobitan’s guidelines range, and 97 months’

imprisonment, although at the high end of the range, is still presumptively

reasonable under United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). 

That presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the factors outlined in 18

U.S.C. § 3553 compelled a lower sentence. See United States v. Lange, 445 F.3d

983, 987 (7th Cir. 2006). Counsel speculates that Sobitan may argue that the fact

that his family has struggled financially and emotionally since his incarceration

compelled a lower sentence. But the district court considered Sobitan’s family

circumstances and concluded that a sentence at the high end of the range was

necessary to reflect the seriousness of his crime and his disregard for the

immigration laws. Neither counsel nor Sobitan identifies any other factor that

would have compelled a lower sentence. 

Next, the district court added a two-level adjustment to Sobitan’s guideline

calculations for obstruction of justice because he used a false name to reenter the

country and refused to disclose financial information to the probation officer. In his

response, Sobitan contends that he could present an argument that the district

court incorrectly added that adjustment, but we disagree. The district court based

that adjustment on adequate evidence on the record. Absent clear error, we will not

overturn a district court’s factual finding that an obstruction of justice adjustment

is warranted and any argument otherwise would be unsuccessful. See United

States v. Warren, 454 F.3d 752, 762 (7th Cir. 2006). 

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.