# United States Court of Appeals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d October14, 20 10 Deci ded Octobe r 18, 20 10

B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudge D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudge D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudge N o. 10
- 2399 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R O N A L D EV A N S, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe Eas te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 2: 08- cr- 00 172- LA
- 33 Lynn Adel m an, Judge . O R D E R Ro na l d Ev an s was o ne o f3 6 defen dan ts a r r es te d fo ro per at i nga l ar g e- sc al e dr ug ring in M i l w aukee, W i sco nsi n. He i ni ti al l y was char ged with dist ributing cr ack coca i ne, and because the am ount was atl eas t 5 0 g ra m s, he faced a m i ni m um pri son ter m o fte n yea rs . 2 1 U.S . C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) ( A ) ( 2006 ) . As part ofa ple a a gr eem ent, Evans co oper ate d wi thinv es ti g at o r s, a nd in e xc ha ng e th e g o ve r nm en t di smi ss ed th e di st r ibut i o n c o unta nd ch ar g ed hi m b yInfo r m at i o n wi thunl awfulus e o fa t el eph o ne t o f ac i l i ta te a fel o nydr ug offe n se , w h ich ca rrie s a st at u to ry m ax im u m p ris on te rm of fou r ye ar s. Id. § 84 3(b ), (d )(1) . The dis tr i ct c ourt, ci ting to K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes, 5 5 2 U. S . 8 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , i mpo s e d a se n te n c e o f 24 m on th s, th e b ot to m of th e g u id elin es ran ge th atw ou ld h av e a p p lied if E va n s’s offe n se h ad inv olv ed p ow d er co c ain e in st ea d of cr ac k. 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 F ed. R. App. P. 32 .1N o. 10
- 2399 Page 2

Evans fi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal, but hi s a pp ointed l aw yerm ove s t o w i thdraw b ec au se h e c an n otid en tify a n on friv olo u s a rg u m en t t o p u rs u e. Se eAnde rs v. Cal i f or ni a, 38 6 U .S. 73 8 (1 96 7). E va n s h as n otres p on d ed to co u n se l’s s u b m iss ion . SeeC IR . R. 51 (b ). W e c on fin e o u 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 , 28 9 F . 3d 968, 973- 74 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . Ther e i s no ind i cati on that E va n s w an ts h is gu ilty p lea va c at ed , so c ou n se l ap p ro p ria te ly om its d isc u ss in g p os sib le c h alle n ge s t o th e p lea co lloqu y or th e v olu n ta rin es s o f th e p lea
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7thCir. 2002). C ou ns el r ep orts tha t he sea rch ed the record for poss ibl e ch all en ges to E van s’s se nt en ce , b utthe o nl yc o nc ei vabl e cl ai m , he s ay s, i s whethe rEv an s co ul d a r g ue tha t th e d ist ric t c ou rtco m m itt ed cle ar err or by find in g th ath e d id n otac c ep t re sp on sib ility
. SeeU . S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1. Counselhas conclud ed that thi s pot enti alar gum ent woul d be fri vol ous a nd we agr ee. I t was Evans’ s bur den to est abl i sh thathe a ccepted r esponsibi l i ty, an d p lea d in g g u ilty is n oten ou gh to gu ar an te e a red u c tio n . U nited Sta tes v. Sellers, 595 F. 3d 79 1, 79 3 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. M cIn to sh , 1 98 F . 3d 99 5, 9 99
- 10 00 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) . T he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d tha tEv a ns h a d n o ta c c e pt e d r e s po ns ib i l i tyb e c a us e h e v i o l a t e d a num bero fpre tr i al
- re l eas e co nd i ti ons. The c ourtfound that Evans had fa l si fi ed the dailyac tiv ity logs giv en to h is p re tr ial-s er vic es offic er, fab ric at ed h os p ita l vis its to ex p lain una utho r i ze d abs en ce s fr o m hi s r es i den ce, a nd e nt i ce d a n a cqua i nt an ce t o c l ai m tha t Eva ns w or ked forhi m wh en in f act Evans did nothave a j ob. Evans did notdi spute the se vio lat ion s; h e a rg u ed on ly th atth e c on d u c t w as irre lev an t a s itw as u n re lat ed to n ar c ot ics . Bu t e vi dence thata defe nd ant v i ol ate d condit i ons ofhi s pre tr i alr el eas e i s r el evantto w h et h er h e a c c ep te d res p on sib ility reg ar d les s o f th e n at u re of u n d er lyin g off en se . See U nited Sta tes v. B o thu n, 424 F. 3d 582, 58 6- 87 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05); M cIn to sh , 198 F.3d at99 9. The potenti al§ 3E1. 1 a rgum ent i s e speci al l y fri vol ous b ecause a decrea se f or ac ce pta nc e o fr es po ns ibi l i tywoul d no t ha ve l o wer ed Eva ns ’ s i m pr i so nm en t r an g e. T he d istri ct cou rt found the im p risonm en t range to be 48 m ont hs becau se th e statu tory m ax i m um i s th e g ui del i ne s r an g e when, a s he r e, the s ta tu to r yc ap i s l o wertha n the m in im u m te rm ca lcu lat ed u n d er th e g u id elin es . U .S.S.G . § 5G 1.1 (a); s e e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Span o , 4 76 F . 3d 47 6, 4 78 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) . I fno t f o rthi s l i m i ta ti o n, Ev an s’ s i m pr i so nm en t ra nge woul d have be en 78 to 97m onths eve n w i th a 3- l eve lr educti on foracc eptance of re sp on sib ility be c au se h is b as e o ffen se lev el w as 30 an d h is c rim in al h ist or y c at eg or y is II. Thu s, the § 3 E1. 1 ruling di d not a ffect the i m pri sonm ent r ange, and re gar dle ss, the dist ri ct c ou rtsa id th atit w ou ld an d d id co n sid er E va n s’s m isc on d u c t o np re tr ial re lea se in evalu ating th e factors un d er 18 U . S. C . § 3553(a). Th e mo t i o n t o wi thd r a w i s GR ANTED, a nd the a pp e a li s DI S M I S S ED.