United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 29, 2009

Decided July 29, 2009

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge 

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 09-1412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EVERETT M. RUBIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

08-CR-00029

William C. Griesbach,

Judge.

O R D E R

Arizona resident Everett Rubio was a source of cocaine for his childhood friend,

Raymundo Ochoa, the main supplier of cocaine in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Ochoa employed

couriers to transport the drugs from Arizona to Wisconsin, but one of the couriers turned

out to be a confidential informant for the government. Rubio pleaded guilty to one count

of distributing cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 48 months’

imprisonment, well below his advisory guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. Rubio filed a

notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer now seeks to withdraw under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he is unable to discern a nonfrivolous issue to

pursue. Counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, and Rubio did not respond to our

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-1412 Page 2

invitation under Circuit Rule 51(b) to comment on counsel’s submission. We limit our

review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289

F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Counsel has not suggested that Rubio wants to set aside his guilty plea, and thus

counsel properly refrains from exploring that issue. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667,

670-72 (7th Cir. 2002). 

The only potential issues counsel raises are whether Rubio can challenge the district

court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or the reasonableness of his sentence. 

Counsel considers arguing that the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors did

not accord enough weight to Rubio’s purportedly minor role in the offense, the effect of a

motorcycle accident on Rubio’s drug and alcohol addictions, his efforts to overcome those

addictions, a reading disability from which he suffers, or the lower sentence one of the

couriers received (counsel says he was sentenced to only 24 months’ imprisonment). 

As counsel recognizes, however, the district court imposed a below-guidelines

sentence after discussing virtually every mitigating factor that counsel mentions. The court

regarded Rubio’s offense as less serious than the typical case of a person heavily involved

in drug trafficking. Rubio, according to the court, was “not inclined” to criminal conduct,

was dealing only with his childhood friend Ochoa—who took the lead in dictating the

quantity of drugs involved— and was struggling through serious drug and alcohol

addictions. The court’s thorough analysis more than fulfilled its obligation to impose a

sentence consistent with § 3553(a), and it is hard for us to conceive how the belowguidelines sentence it chose could be unreasonably high, see United States v. George, 403 F.3d

470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005). Indeed a below-guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable. 

United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir. 2008). 

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