# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d October 21, 2014 Deci ded October 22, 2014

Before RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge No. 13-3903 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOSE GONZA LES-CHAVEZ, Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Sout hern Di stric t of Indiana, Indi anapoli s Di vis i on. No. 1:12CR00091-001 Sar ah Evans Barker , Judge

. O R D E R On two o ccas i ons in 2012, Jose Gonzales -Chavez and a codefendant sold methamphetamine to an undercov er po li ce offi cer. Gonzales-Chavez pleaded gui lty t o a single count allegin g thathe conspi red t o possess at least 50 grams of methamphetamine wi th i ntent t o dis tr ibute. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Th at quanti ty would mandate at least 10 y ears’ im pris onment, id. § 841(b) (1)( A)(vi i i ), and duri ng the plea colloquy Gonzales-Chavez admi tte d that t he conspi racy had i nvolv ed nearly 67 g rams of actual methamp hetami ne. After adj usting for t he statutor y mini mum, the di stric t courtcalc ulated a gui delines’ i mpri sonment range o f 120 to 135 NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-3903 Page 2

months bas ed on a to tal offense level of 30 and cri minal-hi stor y categ or y of II . The court sentenced G onzales-Chavez to 132 mo nths. Gonzales-Ch avez fil ed a notic e of appeal, but hi s appointed att or ney has conclu ded that t he appeal i s fri vo lous and m ov es to wi thdraw under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzales-Chavez opposes 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 addresses the is sues that an appeal of this kin d mi ght be ex pected to involve . Becaus e the analysi s i n couns el’s bri ef appears to be tho ro ugh, we li mi t our rev i ew to t he subjects that couns el has di scu ssed, p lus the addi tional i ssu es that Gonzales-Chavez, di sagreeing wi th counsel, b eli eves have mer i t. See Un ited States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). Counsel tells us that Gonzales-Chavez does notwi sh to challenge hi s gui lty plea, and thus c ounsel appropriately for goe s di scu ssing the v oluntarines s of the plea or t he adequacy of the plea colloquy. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). Couns el also advis es that he r eviewed the di stric t court ’s appli cati on of the sentenci ng guid eli nes bu t did not i denti fy even a po tential c lai m of err or . So the only conceivable appell ate clai m, says couns el, i s wh ether Gonzales-Ch avez could challenge the reasonableness of h i s 132-month pri son term. That wi thi n-gui delines s entence i s presum ptively reasonable. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Smi th , 721 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir. 2013). Counsel cons i ders, but corr ectly r ejects as fri vo lous, a poss ible argument thatthe presumpti on falls aw ay becaus e Gonzales-Chavez’s codefend ant also pleaded gui lty t o the conspi racy charge but was sentenced only to 120 mont hs. Codefendants c ommonly receive di fferent sentences even when they are convicted of the same c rim e. See United States v. Ga mmic chia , 498 F.3d 467, 469 (7th Cir. 2007). The statutor y mi ni mumfor bot h defendants w as 120 months, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A), but, unl i ke Gonzales-Chavez, hi s codefend ant had no cri minal hi stor y. In sentencing Gonzales-Chavez, a Mexican ci tizen who was in the Uni ted S tate s i llegally after prev i ously being remo ved, t he di stric t courtproper ly to ok into account hi s cri minal hi stor y—a prior felony drug convic tion—as well ashi s continuing di sregar d for im mi gr ation law s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 1), (2)

. In hi s Rule 51(b ) response, Gonzales- Chavez pr oposes arg uing that t he gov ernment “did not o ffer evidenc e to justif y the mandato ry 10 year charge.” True,No. 13-3903 Page 3

when the drug quanti ty t riggers a statut or y mi ni mumsentence, the wei ght must be alleged in

the in di ctment and ei ther admitted or prov ed to t he finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. See Alleyne v. Un ited States , 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2155 (2013). Gonzales-Ch avez’s in di ctment alleges that t he wei ght o f the methamphetamine was at least 50 gr ams, an d hi s admi ssi on durin g the plea colloquy to an ev en larger quanti ty was b ett er t han a judge or jury ’s finding beyond a r easonable doubt. See Un ited States v. Warneke, 310 F.3d 542, 550 (7th Cir. 2002). Thushi s proposed appellate clai m would b e fri vo lous. Last, Gonzales- Chavez suggests thathi s law yer ’s perfor manc e has been d efi ci ent, both inthe di stric t courtand in thi s court. Any clai m of ineffec tive ass i stance, however, i s bes t r eserve d for collater al rev i ew wh ere a r ecord can be developed. See Massaro v. United S tat es , 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003); United S tat es v. Harris , 394 F.3d 543, 557–58 (7th Ci r. 2005). That i s espec i ally so when a defen dant i s represented o n appeal by the lawyer whose perfor manc e i s ch allenged as inadequate. See United S tat es v. Rezin , 322 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2003). Counsel’s m otion to withdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMIS SED.