United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 18, 2009

Decided March 19, 2009

Before

     RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

     JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

RICHARD A. LOKEN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal  from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 99‐cr‐010‐bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

In 1999 Richard Loken pleaded guilty to bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), and was

sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release, and ordered to

pay more than $1.4 million in restitution in monthly installments of $500.  Loken failed to

make the full monthly payments, and the district court revoked his supervised release in

2004.  It sentenced him to one day of imprisonment followed by four years’ supervised

release and added a condition of supervised release that Loken receive approval before

incurring any debt above $200.  At another revocation hearing in 2007, Loken admitted

violating that condition when he failed to obtain approval from his probation officer to

secure financing to buy a new Chevrolet Trailblazer and a new Chevrolet Impala.  The court

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐1544 Page 2

revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to nine months in prison followed by four

more years of supervised release, and increased his monthly restitution payment to $1000.

Loken filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer concludes that any issue on appeal

would be frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Loken has not responded to our invitation to comment on counsel’s submission, see CIR. R.

51(b), and so we confine 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).

Counsel first considers whether Loken could challenge the revocation of his

supervised release.  Loken’s violation is a Grade C violation, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3),

which gives the district court discretion to revoke supervised release or to modify the

existing supervised release instead.  See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2); United States v. Salinas, 365

F.3d 582, 585 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004).  At the revocation hearing Loken had proposed that the

court add more time to his supervised release or increase the monthly restitution payments

rather than revoking supervised release.  But the court justified revocation on grounds that

Loken’s purchase of two new cars was “outrageous behavior,” as if he were “thumbing [his]

nose at all of the people that lost so much money as a result of” his criminal behavior.

These comments reflect an acceptable exercise of the court’s discretion; any argument to the

contrary would be frivolous.

Counsel next considers whether Loken could challenge his sentence.  We would

uphold his sentence unless it were plainly unreasonable.  See United States v. Kizeart, 505

F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir. 2007).  The policy statements in the guidelines recommend an

imprisonment range of three to nine months for Loken’s violation, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a),

and the court imposed an imprisonment term of nine months.  Among the factors listed in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court singled out the need to hold Loken accountable for his

violations, to reflect the seriousness of his conduct, and to promote respect for the law.  See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Salinas, 365 F.3d at 588‐89.  Counsel correctly concludes that any

challenge to Loken’s sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.