United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 17, 2014

Decided January 17, 2014

Before

 RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

 FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

 ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 13-1288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER D. NORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 4:12CR40055-002-JPG

J. Phil Gilbert,

Judge.

O R D E R

Christopher Norris pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and was sentenced within his

calculated guidelines range to 216 months’ imprisonment. Norris appealed, but his

appointed counsel has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Norris has not responded to his

counsel’s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues

identified in counsel’s facially adequate submission. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d

968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 13-1288 Page 2

Norris has informed his lawyer that he does not wish to challenge his guilty plea,

so counsel properly omits any discussion about the plea colloquy or the voluntariness

of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v.

Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first considers whether Norris could argue that the district court

miscalculated his guidelines range. We agree with counsel that such a challenge would

be frivolous. Norris waived any challenge to the calculations when he confirmed at

sentencing that he had the opportunity to read the presentence report, knew of his right

to object to its contents, and stated that he had no objections. See United States v. Jones,

635 F.3d 909, 915 n.6 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Brodie, 507 F.3d 527, 531 (7th Cir.

2007).

We also agree with counsel that it would be frivolous to challenge the

reasonableness of Norris’s 216-month sentence. Norris’s term is within the properly

calculated guidelines range (188 to 235 months) and thus presumptively reasonable.

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d

899, 905 (7th Cir. 2012). Counsel proposes only one reason that could disturb that

presumption: the district court disregarded Norris’s argument that his sentence should

be consistent with the 121-month sentence imposed on his brother, a coconspirator, to

avoid any “unwarranted disparity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But § 3553(a)(6) applies

to disparate sentences issued among judges or districts, not codefendants or

conspirators. United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778, 792 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v.

Scott, 631 F.3d 401, 405 (7th Cir. 2011). And a within-guidelines sentence like Norris’s

“‘necessarily’ complies with § 3553(a)(6).” United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 908 (7th

Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 54 (2007)); see Grigsby, 692 F.3d at

792. Moreover, a disparity between the brothers’ sentences was not unwarranted given

their different criminal histories. See United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 781, 788 (7th Cir.

2013); United States v. Duncan, 479 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2007).

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