# UnitedStates Cou rt of App eals F o r t h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 4 Submi tte d May 21, 2014 Deci ded May 21, 2014 Before RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge No. 13-3103 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff–Appell ee,

v. ALLEN C. HELTON, Defen dant–Appellant. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Eastern Di stric t of Wis consin. No. 08-Cr-188 Rudolph T. Randa, Judge

. O R D E R After serving a 60-month sen tence for conspi ring to tr ansport sto len all-terrain vehic les across s tate li nes, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2312, A llen Helton violated the t erms of hi s su perv i sed release by using cocaine, trav eling to Illi noi s wi thout no tif yin g or receiving appro val fro m hi s probation offi cer, and ass oci atin g wi th a felon. Helton admi tte d to each of tho se vi olations. The di stric t courtrev oke d hi s su perv i si on and i mposed a 24-m onth te rm of re i mpri sonment. Helton has fi led a notic e of appeal, but hi s appointed lawyer assert s that the appeal is fri vo lous and s eeks to wi thdraw. See Ande rs v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has sub mi tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature o f the case an d addresses the i ssu es that an appeal of thi s kind mi ght be expected t o invo lve. Because the analysi s in the brief appears to be t horo ugh, we li mi t our r eview to the subjects that counsel h as di scu ssed. See Un ited States v. Bey, No. NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-3103 Page 2

13-1163, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Ci r. Apr . 10, 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Ci r. 1996). Counsel fi rst t ells us that Helto n does not contest his admi ssi ons underlyi ng the rev ocation, s o a challenge to t he rev ocation c annot be a pot entiali ssu e for appeal. See Un ited States v. Whea ton , 610 F.3d 389, 390 (7th Cir. 2010). And at all events, any of hi s confessed vi olations w ould have supported r evo cati on. See U.S.S .G. § 7B1.3(a) (2); United S tat es v. Salin as , 365 F.3d 582, 585 n.1 (7th Ci r. 2004). Counsel di scu sses only o ne other propo sed ch allenge, to the re asonablenes s of Helton’s pris on ter m, bu t that also would b e frivolous. Tw enty-four mont hs w as the longest t erm thatHelton could recei ve because the offens e for whi ch he w as on supervis ed release is a Class D felony. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 3559(a)(4), 3583(e) (3). And although the r ecommended rei mpri sonment range was only 8 to 14 months, see U.S.S .G. § 7B1.4, the di stric t court conclu ded that a higher penalty was warranted based on Helton’s crim inal record, whi ch on di rect appeal we described as “atroci ous.” United States v. Helton , 370 F. App’x 709, 710 (7th Ci r. 2010); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(c ). The court also meaningfully di scu ssed other r elevant facto rs, i nclu di ng Helton’s lack of contro l ove r his cri minal behavi or , and the need to det er himfrom crim e and prot ect the publi c from hi s potential f urther lawles snes s. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a)( 1), (a)( 2)(B) , (a)( 2)(C). We w ould not fi nd the ter m i mposed to be plainly unreasonable. See Un ited States v. Berry, 583 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2009); United S tat es v. Jackso n , 549 F.3d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir. 2008). Counsel’s m otion to withdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMIS SED.