United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 21, 2014

Decided May 21, 2014

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 13-3103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ALLEN C. HELTON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08-Cr-188

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge.

O R D E R

After serving a 60-month sentence for conspiring to transport stolen all-terrain

vehicles across state lines, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2312, Allen Helton violated the terms of

his supervised release by using cocaine, traveling to Illinois without notifying or

receiving approval from his probation officer, and associating with a felon. Helton

admitted to each of those violations. The district court revoked his supervision and

imposed a 24-month term of reimprisonment. Helton has filed a notice of appeal, but

his appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has submitted a brief that explains

the nature of the case and addresses the issues that an appeal of this kind might be

expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit

our review to the subjects that counsel has discussed. See United States v. Bey, No.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 13-3103 Page 2

13-1163, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 10, 2014); United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d

551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel first tells us that Helton does not contest his admissions underlying the

revocation, so a challenge to the revocation cannot be a potential issue for appeal.

See United States v. Wheaton, 610 F.3d 389, 390 (7th Cir. 2010). And at all events, any of

his confessed violations would have supported revocation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2);

United States v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582, 585 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004).

Counsel discusses only one other proposed challenge, to the reasonableness of

Helton’s prison term, but that also would be frivolous. Twenty-four months was the

longest term that Helton could receive because the offense for which he was on

supervised release is a Class D felony. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 3559(a)(4), 3583(e)(3). And

although the recommended reimprisonment range was only 8 to 14 months, see U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.4, the district court concluded that a higher penalty was warranted based on

Helton’s criminal record, which on direct appeal we described as “atrocious.” United

States v. Helton, 370 F. App’x 709, 710 (7th Cir. 2010); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(c).

The court also meaningfully discussed other relevant factors, including Helton’s lack of

control over his criminal behavior, and the need to deter him from crime and protect the

public from his potential further lawlessness. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). We would not find the term imposed to be plainly unreasonable.

See United States v. Berry, 583 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Jackson, 549

F.3d 1115, 1118 (7th Cir. 2008).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.