# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d Janu ary 17, 2014 Deci ded Janu ary 17, 2014

Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circ uit Judge FRANKH. EASTERBROO K, Circ uit Judge ILANA DIAM OND ROVNER, Circ uit Judge No. 13-1288 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CHRIS TOPHER D. N ORRI S, Defen dant-Appellant
. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Courtfor t he Sout hern Di stric t of Illinoi s. No. 4:12CR40055-002-JPG J. Ph i l Gi lbert, Judge
. O R D E R Chris topher Norr i s pleaded gui lty t o conspi racy t o manufac ture methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and w as sen tenced wi thi n hi s calculated gui delines range to 216 months’ i mpri sonment. Norr i s appealed, b ut hi s appoi nted counsel h as conc luded that the appeal i s fri vo lous and s eeks to wi thdraw. See Ande rs v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Nor ris has not responded to hi s couns el’s submi ssi on. See C I R . R. 51(b) . We li mi t our rev i ew to t he potent i al i ssu es i denti fi ed in couns el’s fac i ally adequate subm i ssi on. See Un ited States v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Ci r. 2002). N O N P R E C E D E NT I A L D I S P O S I T I O N T o b e c i te d onl y in a c c o r d an c e wi th F e d
. R
. Ap p . P
. 3 2
. 1No. 13-1288 Page 2

Norr i s has i nformed hi s law yer that he doe s not wi sh to challenge hi s gui lty plea, so couns el proper ly omits any dis cus si on about the plea colloquy or the vo luntarin ess of the plea. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012) ; United S tat es v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel fi rst consi ders whether Nor ris could argue that t he di stric t court mi scal culated hi s gui delines range. We agr ee wi th counsel that such a chal lenge would be fri vo lous. Norr i s wai ved any challenge to the calcu lations when h e confi rmed at sentencing that he had the o pport uni ty t o r ead the presentence re port, knew of hi s ri ght to o bject to i ts contents, and stated that he had no o bjections . See Un ited States v. Jo nes, 635 F.3d 909, 915 n.6 (7th Ci r. 2011); United S tat es v. Brodie, 507 F.3d 527, 531 (7th Cir. 2007). We also agr ee wi th counsel that i t would be fri vo lous to challenge the reasonableness of Norris ’s 216-month sen tence. Norr i s’s term i s wi thi n the pro perly calculated gui delines range (188 to 235 mo nths) an d thus presum ptively reasonable. See R ita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Marin-Casta no , 688 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Ci r. 2012). Counsel propo ses only one reason t hat could di sturb that presumpti on: the dis tr i ct court dis reg arded Nor ris ’s argument thathi s sentence should be consi stent wi th the 121-month sentence i mposed on hi s brother , a coconspi rat or , to avo i d any “unwarranted dis parity.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But § 3553(a) (6) appl i es to disp arat e sentences i ssu ed among j udges or dis tr i cts, not codefendants or conspi rat or s. United S tat es v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778, 792 (7th Cir. 2012); United S tates v. Scott, 631 F.3d 401, 405 (7th Cir. 2011). And a w i thi n-gui delines s entence li ke Nor ris ’s “‘necess arily’ compli es wi th § 3553(a)(6) .” United S tat es v. Bartlett , 567 F.3d 901, 908 (7th Ci r. 2009) (quotin g United S tat es v. Gall , 552 U.S. 38, 54 (2007)); see Grigsby, 692 F.3d at 792. Mor eov er, a dis parity between the brot hers’ sentences w as not unwarranted g i ven their di fferent crim i nal hi stor i es. See Un ited States v. Brow n, 732 F.3d 781, 788 (7th Cir. 2013); United S tat es v. Dun can , 479 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2007). The moti on to wi thdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMISSED
.