# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d July 24, 2014 Deci ded July 28, 2014 Before FRANKH. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge DANIEL A. MANIO N, Circ uit Judge DIANE S. S YKES , Circ uit Judge No. 13-3171 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JEFFREY A . WYCHESI T, Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Courtfor t he Eastern Di stric t of Wis consin. No. 13-CR-26 Wi lli am C. Gri esbach, Chief Ju dge

.
O R D E R After a day of drinking vo dka and Koo l-Ai d, Jeffrey Wychesi t r eturned t o hi s home on the M enominee Indi an Reservat i on and becam e enrag ed that his girlfri end wasn ’t t here. He went after her wi th a hammer when s he arr i ved a short tim e later and bash ed her car when she locked herself in. Though Wyches i t ev entually calmed down enough for his girlfri end to g o in si de the house, he agai n flewinto a r age after catching her on t he phone wi th the police, s o she fled bac k to her car. Wy ches i t then g ot into hi s own vehi cle (after puttin g hi s three-year -old daughter in the pass enger seat) and repeat edly rammed hi s gi rlfriend’s car. He tr i ed to dr i ve away when the polic e arr i ved, NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only in acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-3171 Page 2

and hi s mi rr or struck one o f the approachi ng offi cers. That offi cer (who requi red medi cal attention) lu nged part way thro ugh Wychesi t’s open window, turned off the car, and pulled Wych esi t out . Wychesi t was ch arg ed wi th two counts of assau lt wi th a danger ous weapon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 1153. He pleaded gui lty t o one count, and the dis tr i ct court sentenced hi m to 48 months’ im pris onment based on a gui delines range of 41 to 51 months. Wychesi t fi led a notic e of appeal, but hi s appointed att or ney asserts that t he appeal i s fri vo lous and s eeks to wi thdraw. See Ande rs v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Couns el has s ubm i tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature of the case and addresses the is sues that an appeal of this kin d mi ght be ex pected to involve . We i nvited Wyches i t to r espond, see 7 T H C I R . R. 51(b), b ut he di d not. Because c ounsel’s an alysi s appears to be thor ough, we li mi t our rev i ew to t he subjects he di scu sses . See Un ited States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United S tat es v. Sc huh , 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel tried to deter mine i f Wychesi t wants to challenge hi s gui lty plea, see United S tat es v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002), b ut accordi ng to the lawyer, Wy ches i t “r efus ed to speak” wi th hi m. For that r eason couns el di scu sses the adequacy of the plea colloquy becau se he “hasassu med” that hi s cl i ent “may want to challen ge his plea.” We sai d in Knox that lawyer s sh ould not “bli ndly assu me that their cli ents wi ll benefi t fro m every legal contention, no matter the hazard,” 287 F .3d at 671, and couns el does not ex plain why hi s ass umpti on mi ght be r easonable in thi s cas e. But i n any event, he conclu des, and we agree, t hat ther e i sn’t even a pot entialclai m of err or in the plea colloquy. Counsel als o advisesthat he r eviewed the di stric t court ’s appli cati on of the sentencing guid eli nes bu t did not identi fy a pote nti al clai m of err or . So the only concei vable i ssu e to consi der, says counsel, i s wh ether Wychesi t could chall enge the reasonableness of h i s 48-m onth te rm of im pris onment. We agr ee wi th counsel that such a challen ge would be fri vo lous. Wyches i t’s wi thi n-gui delines s entence i s presum ptively reasonable, see Rita v. Uni ted States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Smi th, 721 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir. 2013), and couns el i denti fi es nothi ng that would re but that presumpti on. Wychesi t has a long hi stor y of crimes that o ften have invo lved (as in thi s case) excessive alcohol and violent or threat ening behavior. Thi s hi stor y led the dis tr i ct judge t o contemplate an abov e-gui delines s entence, but the judge concluded that four year s in pri son was adequate to prot ect the publi c. See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)

. Counsel’s m otion to withdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMISSED

.