United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 16, 2010

Decided January 5, 2011

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

    JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

    ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ISAAC NORFLEET,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 117‐2

Blanche M. Manning,

Judge.

O R D E R

In 2005 Isaac Norfleet pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60

months’ imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised release.  Three years later Norfleet

was released from incarceration and began supervised release.  After Norfleet violated the

terms of his supervised release a second time, the district court, following an oral

agreement between the parties, revoked Norfleet’s supervised release and sentenced him to

11‐months’ imprisonment.  Norfleet’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that any challenge to Norfleet’s

conviction or the reasonableness of his sentence would be frivolous.  Norfleet has not

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐2021 Page 2

accepted our invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b).  We limit our

review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.  See United States

v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

According to a probation officer’s 2008 petition to revoke Norfleet’s supervised

release, Norfleet violated three conditions of his probation: (1) testing positive for

marijuana; (2) failing to participate in mandated drug treatment; and (3) failing to report to

the probation office and to submit written reports as directed.  At a hearing before the

district court, Norfleet admitted that he violated the conditions of his supervised release

and acceded to the court’s order requiring him to report to the Salvation Army for 120

days, after which he would continue to serve the remainder of his original 5‐year term of

supervised release.  

But Norfleet reported at the Salvation Army for only four days, precipitating a

second revocation hearing before the district judge.  At the hearing, the government

informed the court that it had reached a sentencing agreement with Norfleet in which he

would serve an 11‐month term of re‐imprisonment on the condition that he be excused

afterwards from supervised release.  Norfleet told the court he preferred this arrangement

because it would allow him to serve out his sentence in its entirety, thus enabling him to

relocate to the south and find employment there sooner.  The district court imposed the

agreed‐upon sentence.    

Counsel considers challenging the district court’s decision to revoke Norfleet’s

supervised release on grounds that his admissions were not knowing and voluntary.  See

United States v. LeBlanc, 175 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 1999).  But because Norfleet does not wish

to challenge the underlying revocation on appeal, counsel correctly forgoes any such

discussion.  See United States v. Wheaton, 610 F.3d 389, 390 (7th Cir. 2010).  

Counsel also considers whether Norfleet could challenge his 11‐month prison

sentence, but properly concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous.  First, Norfleet’s

11‐month sentence was below the 3‐year maximum of imprisonment that a court may

impose for supervised release violations when the underlying conviction is a Class B felony

(as was Norfleet’s, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(2); 3583(e)(3)).  Further, the court properly

calculated a guidelines range of 5 to 11 months’ imprisonment based on Norfleet’s Grade C

violations of his supervised release and criminal history category of III (as assessed in the

initial presentence investigation report).  See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).  Finally, Norfleet’s within‐

guidelines sentence of 11 additional months for his three Grade C violations was not plainly

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

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