# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Jul y 2 9, 20 09 Deci ded J uly29 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, C ircu it Judge JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 1412 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. EV ER ET T M . R UBI O, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe Eastern Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n. 08- CR
- 0002 9 W i l l i am C. Gr i esba ch, Judg e . O R D E R Ar i z o na r e s i de ntEv e r e t tR ub i o wa s a s o ur c e o fc o c a i ne f o rh i s c hi l dh o o d fr i e nd , Raym und o Ochoa, the m ai n supp l i ero fco cai ne i n Oshkosh, W i sco nsi n. Ochoa em plo yed cour i er s t o tr anspor t the drugs fro m A ri zona to W i sco nsi n, but one ofthe cour i er s turned o utt o b e a co nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t f o rthe g o ve r nm en t. Rubi o pl ea ded g ui l tyt o o ne c o unt of d ist rib u tin g c oc ain e, see21 U . S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) , and w as sente nced to 48 m onths’ i mpr i s o nme nt, we l lb e l o w h i s a dv i s o r y g ui de l i ne s r a ng e o f7 0 t o 8 7mo nths
. Rub i o fi l e d a not ice ofap p eal, bu t his ap p ointed l aw yer now seeks to w ithd raw un d er Ande rs v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 1967 ) , bec ause he i s unabl e t o disc er n a no nfr i vol ous i ssue to pur su e. Co uns el ’ s su ppo r tingb r i efi s f ac i al l y a dequa te , a nd Rub i o di d no t r es po nd t o o ur NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 1412 Page 2

i nv i ta ti o n un derCi r cui t Rul e 51 ( b) t o c o m m en t o n c o uns el ’ s su bmi ss i o n. We l i m i t o ur re vie w to th e p ot en tia l issu es id en tifie d in c ou n se l’s b rie f. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 28 9 F.3 d 96 8, 97 3-7 4 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). Cou ns elha s no t su g g es te d tha t Rub i o want s to s eta si de hi s g ui l typl ea, a nd thus c ou n se l p ro p er ly re fra in s fro m ex p lorin g th atiss u e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 28 7 F . 3d 667, 67 0-7 2 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). The onl y pot enti ali ssues co unselr ai ses ar e whether Rubio can chal l enge the di str i ct c ou rt ’s c on sid er at ion of th e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs or th e re as on ab len es s o f h is s en te n c e. C ou n se l co n sid er s a rg u in g th atth e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c on sid er at ion of th e § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs d id not accord enou gh w eight to R ub io’ s p urp orted ly m inor rol e in the offense, the effect of a m oto rcy cl e a cci dent on Rubi o’ s drug and al coholaddict i ons, hi s e ff or ts to ove rco m e those addi ct i o ns , a r ea di ngdi sabi l i tyfr o m whi chhe s uffer s, o rthe l o wers en te nc e o ne o fthe c ou rie rs rec eiv ed (co u n se l sa ys h e w as se n te n c ed to on ly 2 4 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t). A s co unselr eco gni zes , however, the dist ri ct c ourti m posed a bel ow-gui del i nes sen ten ce after d iscus sing virtua ll y every m iti gating factor th at cou ns el m en tions. T he cou rt re gar ded Rubi o’ s o ffense as l ess se ri ous than the typi calcas e o fa perso n heavi l y invol ved i n drug t ra ffi cking. Rubi o, acc or ding to the c ourt, was “noti ncl i ned” to cr i m i nalco nd uct, was de al i ngo nl y wi thhi s ch i l dho o d fr i en d Och o a—w ho t o o kthe l ea d i n di ct at i ngthe quanti ty ofdrugs i nvol ved— and w as str uggl i ng thr ough s er i ous dr ug and al cohol add i cti ons. The c ourt ’ s thor ough a nal ysi s m or e than fulfi l l ed i ts obl i gat i on t o i m pose a s e n t e n c e c o n s i s t e n twi th § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , a n d i ti s h a r d f o ru s t o c o n c e i v e h o w th e b e l o wgu id elin es se n te n c e itch os e c ou ld be u n re as on ab ly h igh, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ge or ge, 40 3 F . 3d 47 0, 47 3 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). In d ee d a b elo w -gu id elin es se n te n c e is p re su m ed rea so n ab le. U nite d States v. Liddel l , 543 F.3d 87 7, 88 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Counsel ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw is GR AN TED , and the appeal i s D I SM I SSED
.