# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d May 23, 2014 Deci ded May 23, 2014 Before ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge No. 13-2356 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DORSEY CHILDS, Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Eastern Di stric t of Wis consin. No. 12-CR-236 Lynn Adelman, Judge

. O R D E R Dorsey Childs was arrested in2012 after he sold fi rear ms, h ero i n, and c rack cocaine to undercov er o ffi cers. He pleaded gui lty t o two counts of drug di strib uti on, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the di stric t court sentenced hi m to 96 months’ i mpri sonment, well b elow the guidelines range. Chi lds fi led a notic e of appeal, but hi s appointed lawyer assert s that the appeal is fri vo lous and m ov es to wi thdraw under Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Chi lds has not accepted our invi tation to r espond to counsel's m otion. See C I R . R. 51(b). Counsel has sub mi tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature of the case and addressesthe i ssu es that an appeal of thi s ki nd mi ght be ex pected to involve . Becaus e the analysi s in NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-2356 Page 2

the brief ap pears to be thor ough, we li mi t our rev i ew to the subjects thatcouns el has di scu ssed. See Un ited States v. Bey, — F.3d —, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Cir. 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner

, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). Counsel begins b y not i ng that C hi lds hasno i ntere st i n chal lengi ng hi s gui lty pleas. Thus c ounsel appropriately omits di scu ssi on about the adequacy of t he plea colloquy and the vo luntarin ess of the pleas. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Ci r. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel fi rst t ells us that he did n ot identi fy any basi s to questi on the dis tr i ct court’s appli cati on of the sentenci ng guid eli nes. Th e court calculated an i mpri sonment range o f 151 to 188 months, the same range t hat the par ties arr i ved ati n thei r plea agr eement. The only pot entialclai m for appeal, then, i s wh ether Chi lds c ould argue t hat hi s concurrent pris on sentences are unreasonably long. We agr ee wi th counsel that thi s potent i al clai m would b e frivolous. Counsel h as i denti fi ed no reason for us to di sturb the presumpti on of re asonablenes s that appli es to Child s’s 96- month sentences, whi ch are mor e than four ye ars below the low end of the guid eli nes range. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Womack , 732 F.3d 745, 747 (7th Cir. 2013). Before imposing sentence the judge consi dered t he nature of t he cri mes, Chi lds’s si gni fi cant cri minal record, his hi stor y of dr ug abus e and treat ment needs, and h i s mini mal work his tor y. On t he other hand, the judge consi dered Child s’s tumu ltuous upbringi ng, hi s financi al responsibi li ties, and hi s su pport i ve fami ly, and noted t hat hi s desi gnation as a c areer offender, see U.S.S .G. § 4B1.1, may over state t he severity of his past cri mes, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordi ngly, we GRANT couns el’s motion to wi thdraw and DISMISS the appeal.