# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 Subm i tte d Septem ber22 , 20 09 Deci ded S eptem ber28 , 20 09

B efore FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 1585 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. JER O M E G. H U G H E S,

D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Di st r i ctCo ur t f o r the W es te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 0 7 CR 33 Barbar a B. Crabb , Chi e f Judg e . O R D E R D e fe n d a n t Jerom e H ug he s p lead ed guilty to fede ral d rug ch arges an d received a l ife sente nce. H e appeal ed the sente nce cl ai m i ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtm i scal cul ate d his o ffense l eve l w hi ch, tog ether w i th hi s est abl i shed cr i m i nal hi sto ryl eve l, yi el ded a gui del i nes r ange of l i fe. The g ove rnm ent c onceded thata m i sta ke had been m ade and further ackno w l edged that th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s at te m pt to r emedy i ts er r o r was i na dequa te . We a g r ee d a nd r emande d the c a s e f o r re se n te n c in g. U nite d State s v. Taylor, e t al. , No s . 0 7
- 3 6 3 6 , e t a l
. ( 7 th Ci r . Dece m ber 9, 2008 ) (un p ub li sh ed order). On rem and the dist ri ct c ourtco rr ecte d i ts er ro r, deter m i ni ng the gui del i ne r ange to be 3 60 m onths to l i fe, and i m posed a sente nce o f 4 80 m on ths. Di ssa ti sfi ed w i th the new sentence , H u gh es filed a n ot ice of ap p ea l. 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 09
- 1585 Page 2

Cou r t- appo i nt ed co uns elha s m o ved to w i th dr aw b ec au se he i s unabl e to di sc ern a ny m er i tor i ous i ssues f orappeal
. S ee A nders v. Ca li forni a , 38 6 U
. S. 738 (19 67)
. H ughes r esponded to ou r in vit at ion u n d er C irc u it R u le 5 1(b ) t o c om m en t o n h is a tt or n ey ’s s u b m iss ion
. W e lim it our re vi ew to tho se i ssues identi fi ed i n counsel ’ s br i efand H ughes’ r esponse to i t. S ee U nited St at e s v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). I n hi s A nd ers bri ef, cour t- appoint ed counselco rr ectly di sco unts pote nti alar gum ents othe r th an those sp ringing from the on e m istake iden tified in H ug he s’ fir st ap p eal. T hos e issu es are w ai ved. Hu ghes “cannotuse the a cci dent of a r em and to ra i se i n a s eco nd appealan i ssue that he co uld j ust a s wel l have r ai sed i n the fi rs t a pp eal
. ” U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 101 F. 3d 527, 52 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. That l eave s o nl y c hal l enges ar i si ng o ut o fthe cor re cted s entence o rder ed by th is c ou rtin H u gh es ’ first ap p ea l. I n the fi rs t a pp eal, we dir ecte d the dist ri ct courtto corr ect H ughes’ gui del i ne r ange, wh i ch i t di d, and to re sente nce Hu ghes base d on the correc te d r an ge. As counselnot es, tho ugh 48 0 m ont hs i s a very l ong tim e, th ere is not hin g un reason able abou t the district cou rt’s se nt en ce . We a g r ee . At r es en te nc i ngthe di st r i ctj udg e he ar d fr o m c o uns ela nd Hugh es . S he reviewed the t r an sc r i ptsof th e ori ginal sente nc ing an d cons idered allof th e ap p rop riate f acto rs und er18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. Although the pros ecuto r aga i n ar gued f ora l i fe s entence , the dist ri ct j ud ge concl ud ed otherwis e. S he se n te n c ed H u gh es to a withi n gui del i nes s entence o f48 0 m onths, r em ar ki ng tha t Hu ghes was a danger ous ind i vi du alwh o had am ass ed a r eco rd unl i ke an y s he ha d e ve r s ee n. H ug he s’ ar g um en t th at th e di st r i ct co ur t co ul d “r ely o n th e cr ac k/pow d er c o ca i ne dispar i ty” to i m pose a l ower s entence i s a non st ar te r. C ou nseldi d not r ai se a cl ai m under K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct. 55 8 ( 2007 ) , i n H ughes’ fi rs t a pp eal, and thi s co urt did not m en ti o n Kim b r ough i n i ts rul i ng o n that appeal
. That the dist ri ct j ud ge m i sta kenl y r efer enced Kim b r ough atr ese ntenci ng, co ncl ud i ng tha t the d i spari ty i n the s entence s forcr ack and pow der c o c a i n e d o e s n o tr e q u i r e a l o we r s e n t e n c e i n Hugh e s ’ c a s e , i s o fno mo me n t . L i k e c o u n s e l, we d i s c e r n n o n o n fr i v o l o u s i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w. W e t h er efo re G R A N T co u n se l’s m ot ion to w ith d ra w an d D ISM ISS t h is a p p ea l.