# United 

# S tates C o u rt o f A p p ea ls F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d Febr uary11 , 20 09 Deci ded J uly16 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 1979 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. PE TE R L. CR AI GG, 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. N o. 07
- CR
- 233 W illiam C . G rie sb ac h, Judg e . O R D E R P et er C ra igg p lea d ed gu ilty to m ain ta in in g a d ru g t ra ffick in g h ou se , see 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 56, and re cei ved a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence o f12 0 m onths i n pri son. Cra i gg appeal s, but hi s a pp ointed counselhas m ove d to w i thdraw because he has been unabl e t o i denti fy a n on friv olo u s b as is for ap p ea l. SeeAnd ers v. C alif ornia , 38 6 U.S . 73 8 ( 1967 ) . W e invi ted C ra igg to co m m en t o nco u n se l’s s u b m iss ion, see C IR . R. 51 (b ), bu t h e h as n otres p on d ed
. W e th er efo re lim it ou r re vie w to th e p ot en tia l issu es id en tifie d in c ou n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e b rie f. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 1979 Page 2

I n J anuary20 07 W i sco nsi n author i ti es obs er ved f our contr ol l ed buys ofcr ack at Crai gg’ s ho m e, wh er e he l i ved w i th hi s g i rl fri end. A sear ch ofthe house l ate r uncover ed approxi m ate l y 1 31 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne and $1, 840 cash. Cra i gg w as charg ed i n a tw oc ou n t in d ict m en t w ith co n sp irin g t o d ist rib u te 50 or m or e g ra m s o f cr ac k, see 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 46 , an d p os se ss in g w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te 50 or m or e g ra m s o f cr ac k, se e id
. § 84 1(b) ( 1) ( A). T he g o ve r nm en t al so fi l ed ani nf o r m at i o n c ha r g i ngCr ai g gwi thha ving been convi cted o fa pri ordrug fel ony. In J anuary20 08 Crai gg agr eed to pl ead gui l ty to m ai ntai ni ng a re si dence f orthe pu rpos e o fdi str ibuting cr ack, and i n exchange f orhi s pl ea the g ove rnm ent di sm i sse d both the co nspir acy and posses si on char ges . Cou ns elfi r stc o ns i der s whethe ri t woul d b e fr i vo l o us f o rCr ai g gt o c ha l l en g e th e vo lu n ta rin es s o f h is p lea w h en th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otw h olly co m p ly w ith Fe d er al R u le ofCri m i nalPro cedure 11 i n conducti ng Crai gg’ s pl ea col l oquy. Counsel, having ve ri fi ed th atC ra ig w ish es to w ith d ra w h is gu ilty p lea , pr op er ly c on sid er s t h is iss u e. See U nited St at e s v. Knox, 28 7 F . 3d 667, 67 0- 72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . Beca use Cra i gg did notm ove to wi th dr aw hi s pl eai n the di st r i ctc o ur t, we woul d r ev i ew the a dequa cyo fthe pl eac o l l o quy for p lain err or . See U nited Sta tes v. Lind er, 53 0 F . 3d 556, 56 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) . Counselnot es tw o om i ssi ons i n the ple a co l l oquy: fi rs t, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not s peci fi cal l y a dvis e Cra i gg th at, i f h e lied u n d er oa th , th e g ov er n m en t c ou ld p ro se c u te h im for p erj u ry , see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(b) ( 1) ( A ) , and sec ond, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not e xpli ci tl y t el lCrai gg that he had th e rig h t t o p lea d n otgu ilty , see F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 ( b) ( 1) ( B) . Onthi s r ec o r d, b o tho m i ss i o ns ar e har m l ess . Because Cra i gg’ s pl ea agr eem ent a dvis ed hi m thathe c oul d be pro secute d f orperj ury and that he had the ri ght t o ple ad not gui l ty, i t would be fri vol ous t o ar gue that th e o m iss ion of th es e t w o or al w ar n in gs co n st itu te d p lain err or . See U nited Sta tes v. D river, 242 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 2001). A d d iti ona ll y, C raigg w as no t harm ed by the cou rt’s f ail ure to w ar n hi m o fthe conse quences o fperj ury because ther e i s no curr ent o r pros pecti ve p ro se c u tio nag ain sth im for p erj u ry . See U nited v. G rav es , 98 F .3d 25 8, 25 9 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ). A nd Crai gg knew he coul d plea d not guil ty because he ha d so ple aded as t o the c onspi ra cy an d p os se ss ion ch ar ge s. Se eKnox, 28 7 F . 3d at 670. F i nal l y, we note that al though har m l ess o nth i s r e c o r d , th e s e o mi s s i o n s a r e f a rfr o m in c o n s e q u e n t i a la n d e n t i r e l y p r e v e n t ab l e . We st r o ng l y s ug g es t th atdi st r i ctc o ur t j udg es f o l l o w the mode lf o rc o nduc tinga pl eac o l l o quy ou tlin ed in t h e B en c hb oo k for U .S. D ist ric t C ou rtJu d ge s t o e n su re th atom iss ion s o f th is n at u re are elim in at ed
. See § 2 .01 (5t h ed . 200 7); also availabl e at http: // cw n. f

j c. dcn/publi c/pd f
. nsf/l oo kup/Benchbk5. pd f/$ fi l e/Benchbk5. pd f( l astvi si ted Feb. 11 , 200 9). C ou n se l also co n sid er s w h et h er C ra igg co u ld ch alle n ge th e re as on ab len es s o f h is se nt en ce . At se nt en cingthe di st r i ctc o ur t co ns ul te d the S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s an d calcu lated Cra igg’s gu idelines ran ge to be 130 to 162 m ont hs i n p rison. Th e cou rtN o. 08
- 1979 Page 3

con side red the factors set f orth in 18 U
. S. C . § 3553(a), exp lai nin g tha t, given C raigg’s pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o ns f o rde al i ngc r ac ka nd the da ng er o us ne ss o fthe o ffen se , a s i g ni fi ca nt se n te n c e w as n ee d ed to d et er fu tu re d ea lin g on C ra igg ’s p ar t. See § 3 55 3(a )(2) (A ) an d (B ). Further, we have ne verco nsi dered a bel ow-r ange sente nce s uch as Crai gg’ s t o be u n re as on ab ly h igh
. Se ee . g. , U nite d States v. W allace, 531 F.3d 50 4, 50 7 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Because the di str i ct c ourther e m eani ngfully c onsi dered the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs , we agr ee w i th counselthatany ar gum ent c hal l engi ng the r eas onabl eness o fCrai gg’ s s entence would be friv olo u s. SeeU nite d States v. R it a , 127S. C t. 24 56 , 246 2-6 3 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ann on , 51 8 F .3d 49 4, 49 6 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). A ccor dingly, we GR AN T c o un s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi thd r a w a nd DI SMI SS th e a p p ea l.