United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted October 2, 2008

Decided October 2, 2008

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

            TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 07‐3048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JAMES D. RAYFORD,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06‐CR‐343‐01

Suzanne B. Conlon,

Judge.

O R D E R

James Rayford pleaded guilty in 1999 to possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine,  see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and conspiracy to do the same, see id. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).

The district court sentenced him to 135 months’ imprisonment but later reduced that term to

90 months in light of Rayford’s substantial assistance.  See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(b).  Rayford,

though, violated the terms of his supervised release shortly after he was discharged from

custody in 2006.  His probation officer reported in January 2007 that Rayford had been

arrested on separate occasions for domestic battery and assault.  Rather than revoking

Rayford’s supervised release—as the probation officer recommended initially—the district

court amended the conditions of Rayford’s supervised release to include drug and alcohol

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07‐3048 Page 2

treatment, mental‐health treatment, and a twelve‐month stay at a Salvation Army halfway

house.  But Rayford did not last long at the halfway house; he racked up three unexcused

absences in five weeks, refused to take a breathalyzer test, and was finally asked to leave the

program.  His probation officer recommended revocation a second time in May 2007, but

before the court could hold another hearing, Rayford pleaded guilty to a slew of new state

charges—domestic battery, assault, and criminal damage to property—and was sentenced

to 120 days’ imprisonment.  At a revocation hearing in August 2007, the district court

revoked Rayford’s supervised release and imposed another 36 months’ imprisonment.

Rayford appeals, but his attorney is at a loss for nonfrivolous arguments and has

asked to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  We invited Rayford to

comment on the pending motion. See Cir. R. 51(b).  He did not respond.  That leaves us

with only the one potential issue posed in counsel’s supporting brief.  See United States v.

Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel questions whether Rayford could argue that his term of reimprisonment is

unreasonable but concludes that the contention would be frivolous.  We agree.  Our review

of additional imprisonment imposed on revocation of supervised release asks whether the

term is plainly unreasonable, a very narrow standard.  United States v. Kizeart, 505 F.3d 672,

675 (7th Cir. 2007).  A district court must consider the policy statements found in Chapter 7

of the guidelines and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before

determining an appropriate period of reimprisonment.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States

v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427, 438 (7th Cir. 2008).  In Rayford’s case the court acknowledged that the

revocation table recommended an imprisonment range of 5 to 11 months given Rayford’s

Grade C violations and his criminal history category of III.  See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4.  Yet the

court opted for a longer term—36 months—in light of Rayford’s failure to “adjust[] at all to

supervision.”  In reaching its decision, the court noted that Rayford had become “an

extreme burden on the probation office” and had not modified his behavior despite

numerous opportunities for mental‐health treatment and anger‐management counseling.

That is ample consideration.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.