# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604
Submi tte d April 17, 2014 Deci ded April 18, 2014 Before JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge
No. 13-3224
UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MARY ANN BOHLEN, Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Co urt for the Centr al Di stric t of Illi noi s. No. 13-30005-001 Sue E. My erscough, Judge

. O R D E R
For four year s Mary Bohlen embezzled m oney fr om bank accoun ts she contro lled. She was treasurer o f the Illi noi s Corr ecti onal Employees Memor i al Associ ation fu nd, wh i ch as si sts fam i li es of Department of Co rr ecti ons employees kill ed or permanently injured in the li ne of duty. Bohlen re crui ted new memb ers and soli ci ted donations whi le ski mming more than $50,000 for her self. And in her reg ular employment as assi stant deputy director and su perv i sor o f acc ountin g at DOC , Bohlen stole ar ound $27,000 from sever al DOC fund s. She pleaded gui lty t o two counts of mai l fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and two counts of theft fr om an org ani zation that receives federal funds, id. § 666(a)( 1)(A). After calcu latin g a guidelines i mpri sonment range o f 21 N O N P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i te d onl y i n a c c o r d an c e wi th F e d

. R

. Ap p . P

. 3 2

. 1No. 13-3224 Page 2

to 27 mo nths, the di stric t courtsentenced Bohlen to 21 months and order ed her to pay restituti on. Bohlen fi led a notic e of appeal, but her appoin ted lawyer asserts that the appeal i s fri vo lous and m ov es to wi thdraw under Anders v. Calif ornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Bohlen has n ot accepted our i nvitati on to respond to couns el’s motion. See C I R . R. 51(b). Counsel has sub mi tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature of the case and addressesthe i ssu es that a case of thi s ki nd mi ght be ex pected to involve . Becaus e the analysi s in the bri ef appears to be tho ro ugh, we li mi t our rev i ew to t he subjects thatcouns el has di scu ssed. See Un ited States v. Bey, No. 13-1163, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 10, 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). Counsel begins b y not i ng that Bo hlen has no i ntere st i n chal lengi ng her g ui lty pleas. Thus c ounsel appropriately omits di scu ssi on about the adequacy of t he plea colloquy and the vo luntarin ess of the pleas. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Ci r. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel fi rst consi ders whether Bohlen could argue t hat the dis tr i ct court clearly err ed by assi gni ng an 8-level upward adjustment based on a c alcul ated loss of $77,889, see U.S.S .G. § 2B1.1(b )(1) (E), an d conclu des that i t would be fri vo lous for her t o do so. We agr ee. Bohlen obje cted to t hat calcu lation, argui ng that t he increase sh ould be li mi ted to 6 levels becaus e she us ed the money sto len from the DOC accounts to “repay ” about $27,000 of the funds taken from the memor i al acc ount before t he embezzlements w ere dis cover ed. Id. § 2B1.1(b) (1)( D) & c mt. n.3(E)( i ). Though s he di d not conte st the to tal loss amount, she argued that $27,000 should have been credi ted again st i t. See id. § 2B1.1(b) cmt. n.3(E )(i ). But courts need not deduct from the lo ss amount money thatthe defendant spent fac i li tating a conti nuing fraud. See Un ited States v. Powell , 576 F.3d 482, 497 (7th Cir. 2009); United S tat es v. Spano , 421 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Ci r. 2005); United S tat es v. Mucci ante, 21 F.3d 1228, 1238 (2d Ci r. 1994) (conclu ding that defendant was not ent i tled to credi t since repayment was “meretr i ci ous effort” t o perpet uate schem e). Bohlen repai d the $27,000 wi th money she had stolen from the i nmate accoun ts i n order to conceal her embezzlement from t he memorialaccoun t and enable her to k eep steali ng, whi ch s he di d for t hree mor e year s. Th e presentence repo rt noted as muchand Bohlen di d not o bject, and the dis tr i ct court ado pted this factual finding. The judge’s to tal calcu lation, then, w as not “outsid e the r ealm of permi ssi ble computati ons.” See Un ited States v. Radz iszewski, 474 F.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and ci tation omi tte d).No. 13-3224 Page 3

Counsel next consi ders whether Bohlen could argue t hat the dis tr i ct court abused i ts di screti on by im posing a speci al condi tion of su perv i sed release that pr ohibi ted her from frequenting plac es wh ere g ambling occurs. Di stric t court s have authority t o i mpose spec i al condi tions not ex pli ci tly mandated by stat ute, 18 U.S .C. § 3583(d), b ut those condi tions mus t r easonably relate to t he nature and ci rcums tances of the cas e, and they must not infringe the defendant’s li berty more t han reasonably necess ary to det er, and prot ect the publi c from, future cri mes. See id. §§ 3553(a), 3583( c), ( d); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b ); United S tat es v. Sil vious , 512 F.3d 364, 370–71 (7th Cir. 2008).
Prevent i ng a defendant wi th a gambling pro blem fro m gambling or frequentin g places where gambling occurs i s a permi ssi ble condi tion of su perv i sed release, Silvi ous , 512 F.3d at 371, and on t hi s record we agr ee wi th counsel’s conclu si on that a challenge to t he gambling restr i cti on on Bohlen would be fri vo lous. Bohlen adm i tte d that she had gambled wi th the embezzled fund s and li ked frequenting cas i nos. See Un ited States v. Brown , 136 F.3d 1176, 1186 (7th Cir. 1998). The court t hus i mposed the condi tion to ensure that her inc ome would go t oward r esti tution and n ot g ambling. And although Bohlen argued t hat the r estric tion w ould li mi t her abili ty t o fi nd a wai tr essing jo b, the di stric t j udge explain ed that many r estaurants do notallow gambling. Counsel finally evaluates whether Bo hlen could arg ue that her concurr ent prison sentences are unreasonably long and ri ghtly conclu des that this potent i al clai m would be fri vo lous. Her lack of cri minal hi stor y placed her i n Catego ry I, whi ch, c ombined wi th her t otal o ffens e level o f 16, yi elded an i mpri sonment range o f 21 to 27 months. Her 21-month sentence i s presum ed reasonable, see Rita v. Uni ted States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Smi th , 721 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir. 2013), and nothin g about thi s cas e warrant s an excepti on to that pr esum ption. Bef or e i mposing the sentence the judge consi dered Bohlen’s mental-health i ssu es and her need to care for her mot her. On the ot her hand, the judge consi dered that Bohlen was s tealin g money t hat was intended for fami li es of DOC employees killed in the li ne of duty and that she may never be able to fully r epay the amount t hat she stole. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Accordi ngly, we GRANTcouns el’s motion to wi thdraw and DISMISS the appeal.