# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 20, 2013

Decided July 12, 2013

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 12

‐ 2788

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

EMMA THOMAS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 06

‐ cr

‐ 48

‐ wmc

‐ 1

William M. Conley,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Emma Thomas began serving a 5

‐ year term of supervision after her release in 2009

following a conviction for bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344. She soon violated the conditions of

her supervised release by testing positive for marijuana and cocaine use, maintaining

contact with felons and drug users, incurring a conviction for disorderly conduct, dropping

out of her drug treatment program, failing to inform her probation officer of her current

address, and possessing a dangerous weapon—leading the court to revoke her supervised

release three times. The court sentenced her to a prison term of one day for the first

revocation, and one year for the second; for her third revocation, the court sentenced her to

a year and a day. Thomas filed a notice of appeal challenging the third revocation, but her

appointed lawyer contends that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw under

Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Thomas has not responded to counsel’s motion. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 12

‐ 2788 Page 2

See CIR. R. 51(b). 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 Thomas could challenge the revocation based on the

sufficiency of the evidence and properly concludes that this argument would be frivolous.

To revoke a defendant’s supervised release, a district court must find by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of supervised release. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3); United States v. Preacely

, 702 F.3d 373, 375 (7th Cir. 2012). At the revocation

hearing, Thomas admitted that a drug user frequently visited the residence where she was

living. She also acknowledged that after moving out she failed to alert her probation officer

of her new address. And despite an earlier warning from the judge about possessing

dangerous knives, she testified that she kept in her purse a 7

‐ inch knife (which she said she

found on the sidewalk and hoped to pawn for money to fix her phone). This evidence was

enough to show that Thomas had violated her conditions of supervised release. See Preacely

,

702 F.3d at 375–76; United States v. Musso

, 643 F.3d 566, 570–71 (7th Cir. 2011).

Counsel next asks whether Thomas could challenge her third reimprisonment term

as plainly unreasonable and concludes that such a challenge would be frivolous. We agree.

The court sentenced her to 12 months in prison based on her repeated inability to follow the

conditions of her supervised release, including her disregard of an explicit warning about

possessing dangerous knives. We would presume this sentence to be reasonable because it

falls within the range of 8 to 14 months suggested by the sentencing commission (based on a

Grade C violation and a criminal history category of VI). See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United

States v. Berry

, 583 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Kizeart

, 505 F.3d 672,

674–75 (7th Cir. 2007). The judge reasonably applied the relevant § 3553(a) factors by

determining that a 12

‐ month sentence was appropriate to provide deterrence, protect the

community, and hold Thomas accountable for her failure to comply with the terms of her

supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(B); United States v. Neal

, 512 F.3d 427,

438–39 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Pitre

, 504 F.3d 657, 664–65 (7th Cir. 2007).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.