United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 17, 2014

Decided January 17, 2014

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 13‐1532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

LOUISE K. SAINE,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Southern District

of Illinois.

No. 4:12CR40098‐001

J. Phil Gilbert,

Judge.

O R D E R

On three occasions in 2012, informants bought powder or crack cocaine from

Louise Saine near a church in Mount Vernon, Illinois. Saine pleaded guilty to three

counts of distribution, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Prior felony convictions for delivery of a

controlled substance made Saine a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), with a

guidelines imprisonment range of 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenced her to

a total of 108 months. She filed a notice of appeal, but her appointed lawyer asserts that

the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967). Saine did not accept our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. See CIR.

R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues discussed in counsel’s facially

adequate submission. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 13‐1532 Page 2

Counsel explains that Saine does not wish to challenge her guilty pleas. Thus

counsel appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the

voluntariness of the pleas. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012);

United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first questions whether Saine could argue that it was error for the

district court to apply the career‐offender guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). We agree

with counsel that an appellate claim would be frivolous; Saine already had incurred

three convictions in Illinois for delivery of a controlled substance, 720 ILCS 570/401, and

two was enough to make her a career offender when she committed the federal

trafficking crimes, see U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1(a) & cmt. n.1, 4B1.2(b); United States v. Black, 636

F.3d 893, 898 (7th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the district court recognized that it could

sentence Saine as if she was not a career offender, see United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d

411, 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc), but the court declined to exercise that discretion.

Counsel also evaluates whether Saine could argue that her concurrent prison

sentences are unreasonably long and concludes that this potential claim would be

frivolous. We agree. The overall term is more than six years below the guidelines

minimum and is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347

(2007); United States v. Womack, 732 F.3d 745, 747 (7th Cir. 2013). Nothing in the record

warrants an exception to that presumption. The district court considered the sentencing

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), noting Saine’s history of mental and physical abuse, her

difficult life, and the potential for a within‐guidelines sentence to be a de facto life

sentence given that she was 54 years old. The court also discussed her lengthy criminal

history, the need to protect the public from future crimes, and her repeated returns to

cocaine sales. See id. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). This was an adequate

explanation for the below‐guidelines sentence.

Accordingly, we GRANT counselʹs motion to withdraw, DENY Saine’s motion

for the appointment of substitute counsel, and DISMISS the appeal.