## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10
- 1148 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C O REY W EBS TER, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- CR-111- C- 01

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge . S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 17, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 2, 2010

Befo re C OFFEY, F LA UM, an d R IPPLE, C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . Corey W ebst er ple aded guil ty to d i str ibuti ng her oi n, s ee21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) , afterm aking a sing l e sa l e i n J an ua r y 2 00 8. Pr i o rt o the pl ea c o l l o quy, the gover nm en t ha d fi l ed anInf o r m at i o n t o e nha nc e th e m ax im u m p ris on te rm from 20 t o 3 0 ye ar s a n d th e m in im um te rm o fsuperv i sed r el eas e fro m 3 to 6 ye ar s ba sed o n a “ pr i o rc o nv i c t i o n” f o ra fe l o nydrugo ffe ns e. See 21 U
. S. C. §§ 84 1( b) ( 1) ( C), 85 1( a)
. That pro secuti on byW i s-2 N o. 10
- 1148
con sin au th oriti es arose from anot h e r heroin sale occu rring seve ral d ays before th e cu rrent offense. W e b s ter, th o u g h, d i d n o t pl e a d g u i l t y i n s t a t e c o u r tu n t i lN o v e mber20 08

— 11 m onths a fterhe c om m itt ed the federa l c r i me

— and i n f act he was sti l lwait i ng to be sente nced inst at e c ou rtw h en th e d ist ric t c ou rtse n te n c ed h im in th is case to 151 m ont hs i n p rison a n d 6 y e a rs of su p ervi sed r el eas e. W ebst erfi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal, but h is app oi nted l awy erha s co nc l ud ed thatthe a ppea li s fr i vo l o us a nd m ov es to w ith d ra w . See A nders v. Ca li forni a , 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 19 67 )
. W ebst erhas not accepte d our i nvi tat i on t o r es po nd t o c o unsel ’ s m o ti o n. SeeC IR . R . 51(b ). W e lim it ou r review to th e p oten tial issues iden tified in c o u ns el’ s f ac ially ad eq u at e b rie f. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 28 9 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). Be c a us e Web s t e rdo e s n o twa nth i s g ui l t y p l e a v a c a t e d, coun selco rr ectly for goe s di scussing the vo l untariness of th e p lea or th e a d eq u ac y of t h e p lea co lloq u y. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-71 (7th C ir. 2002). Counsel ev al uates wh etherW ebst er c oul d chal l enge hi s enha nc ed te r m o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se te rm o n the g r o un d that the g o v e r nme nt ’ s Info r mat i o n i s i nv a l i d. U nd er§ 841(b) ( 1) ( C) the enhanced penal ti es f oro ther drug co nvi cti ons apply onl y i fthe defe nd an t co m m i tte d the c harg ed vi ol ati on o f§ 841(a )(1) “a ftera pri orco nvi ct i o n f o ra fe l o n y d r u gc o n v i c t i o n h a s b e c o me fi n a l
. ” As c ou n se l rec og n ize s, h ow ev er , th e In for m at ion i s in va lid because i t r el i es on a con vic tion f ora charg e that ha d no t ev enb ee n fi l ed when W ebs te rc o m m i tt ed th eN o. 10
- 1148 3 federa lcr i m e a nd , i nd eed, st i l lwas not fi nalo n the date o fthe f ede r alse nt en cing . H en ce , i t woul d a ppea rtha t th e dist ri ct c ourter re d i n conclu d i ng tha t W ebst erwas su bj ect to a m inim um of 6 years ( an d no t 3 ) o f s up ervis ed rele as e. See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (C). Y et, cou ns el reason s th at ch all en ging th e term of su p ervi sed r el eas e wou ld b e fri vol ous b ecause § 851( c) ( 2) pr o vi des tha t “[ a] ny c hall en ge to a pr i o rc o nv i ct i o n, no t r ai se d b y res po ns e to the i nf o r m at i o n b efo r e ani nc rease d sentence i s i m posed i n re l i ance there on, sh all be wai ved unl ess go od cause be shown f orf ai l ure to m ake a ti m el y c hal l enge. ” Other w i se, W ebst er ’ s s i l ence a ts e nt e nc i ngmi g hta l l o w u s t o r e v i e w the enhanced m in im u m p en alt y for p lain err or . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Lewis , 5 97F
. 3d 13 45 , 1 346- 47( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( di sc us sing whe the rde fe nd a nth a d wa i v e d, o rs i mpl y f o r fe i t e d, ap p li cation of en ha nc em en t for p riorconv iction w he re g o ve r nm en t f ai l ed to fi l e I nfo r m at i o n un der§ 8 51 but defe nd ant had affi rm ati vel y c onceded at sen tencing that enhanced m i ni m um se ntence appli ed). B ut bec ause of § 85 1( c) ( 2) , c o uns elc o ntends tha t we c anno t r ev i ew the i s s u e a t a ll. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. D i cke rs on , 5 1 4 F
. 3 d 60, 65 (1st C ir. 2008). W e hav e no t a dd re sse d w hether§ 851( c) ( 2) bl ock s all appell ate chal l enges to co nvi cti ons that w er e no t disputed i n the dist ri ct c ourt, part i cul ar l y those wh er e, as he r e, the de fen dan t co ul d a r g ue tha t th e g o ve r nm en t re l i ed on a n offense that does not as a thres h old m att er m eet§ 841’ s de

f i ni t i onal r equi r ement s f o ra “ pr i o rc o nvi cti on. ” The l anguage of § 851( c) ( 2) m ake s e vi dent that4 N o. 10
- 1148 a chal l en ge to the validityo fa pri orco nvi cti on i s wai ved if no ob j ec tio n is m ad e in th e d i s t ric t c ou rt . See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 851(c)(2); C ustis v. U nit e d S t a tes , 51 1 U.S
. 48 5, 49 1- 92 (1994); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 348 F.3d 78, 88 ( 5th Cir. 20 03 ) (ap p lyin g § 85 1(c )(2) to w aiv e d efe n d an t’s ch all enge to prior c onvict i on o n gr ound ofi neffecti ve ass i stance ofco unsel )
. Othercir cui ts have concl ud ed, however t h a t ch all en ges of any typec anb e wai ve d, i nc l udi ng conte nti ons that a convi cti on does not quali fy as a “ pri or c on vic ti on. ” Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. La w , 5 2 8 F
. 3 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 8
- 09 (D
. C. Cir
. 20 08) ( re l yi ng o n § 8 51( c) ( 2) i n concl ud i ng tha t, by not ra ising i ssue i n dis tr i ct c ourt, defendant w ai ved ar gum ent that pr i or d rug convi cti ons used f orenhancem ent were not felo nies as requ ired by § 841 ); U n ited S ta tes v. Br ooks , 508 F.3d 120 5, 1208 -09 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (sam e); U nited Sta te s v . Va nD o ren , 182 F.3d 107 7, 1082 -83 (9th C ir. 1999 ) ( re l yi ng o n § 8 51( c) ( 2) i n concl ud i ng th at , b y no t r ai singi ss ue i n di st r i ctc o ur t, de fen dan t wai ve d a r g um en t th atdr ug c onv i ct i o n us ed f o re nha nc ement w as no t “fi na l ” when fede r alo ffen se was c o m m i tted); U nite d States v. Fre nch , 974 F.2d 687, 696-9 7 (6th C ir. 1992 ) (sam e). W e do not have a d ec isio n on poi nt, but that w oul d not kee p us fro m co ncl ud i ng tha t a ny at tem p t b y W ebst erto sk irtt h e e ffec t o f § 85 1(c )(2) w ou ld be frivo lou s. See U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez -Flo res , 275 F.3d 6 6 1 , 662-63 (7th Cir. 20 01 ) (“[A ] gro u n d of ap p ea l ca n be frivo lou s e ve n if th er e i s no c as e o n po i nt

— m ay be fri vol ous b ecause , f or exam ple , o fthe cl ar i ty of sta tutory l anguage , o r eve n as a m atter of com m on s ense. ”)
. Yet w e nee d not g o so f ar i n th i s ca se because , ev en i fthe potenti ali ssue i s no tN o. 10
- 1148 5

w ai ved enti re l y b y a pp l i cati on o f§ 851( c) ( 2) , the questi o n i s ne ve r th el es s fr i vo l o us whens cr ut i ni ze d unde rthe p lain -er ro r st a n d a r d
. SeeLe w is , 59 7 F
. 3d at 1347
. U nd er th ats ta nda r d W eb ster w o ul d ha ve t o pr o ve tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtco m m i tte d an obv i ous e rr orthataffected subst an ti alr i ghts and und er m i ned the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, or p u b lic rep u ta tio n of j u d ic i a l p ro c ee d in gs . See U nited St at e s v. O l ano , 5 07 U
. S. 72 5, 73 2- 34, 73 6 ( 1993 )
. The er ro r here i s cl earand affecte d W ebster ’ s s ubstanti al r i g ht s sinc e i t l ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t to c o nc l ude that the m i ni m um ter m of supervi sed re l eas e w as si x yea rs , not th re e. Se eU ni t e d St at e s v. Gr aham , 31 7 F
. 3d 262, 26 5, 27 3- 75 (D
. C
. Cir. 2 003) (sub stan tial rights affected w he re dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced defendant u n d er wrong s ubsection of § 841, l ead ing to hig he r m inim um term of su p erv i s e d r e l e a s e )
. Bu t W e b s t e r wo ul d b e un ab l e t o per s ua de us tha t th e co ur t’ s er r o ri n c al cul at i ngthe min i m um term of su p ervised rel ease ser iou sly affected the fairness, i ntegr ity , o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fthe proce edi ngs a nd m ustbe co rre c te d
. See U ni t ed St at e s v. M oul i ng, 55 7 F. 3d 658, 66 7 ( D.C. Ci r. 20 09)
. T h e d istri ct c ourt ’ s e rr or he re w as inad verten t. A s cou ns el notes, the d is t r ic t cou rt f ol l owed the p ro c eduralr equi re m ents of§ 851 and gave W ebst ernot i ce o fthe p ro posed enhancem ent a nd an op po r tu ni tyt o c ha l l en g e th e us e o fthe s ta te di st r ibutio n offe n se for e n h an c em en t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. La ne, 591 F. 3d 921 , 9 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A nd since all v i o l at i o ns of § 841(a)(1) carry th e po ten tial fo r a l if e term of su p ervis ed rele as e, see U n i ted S ta tes v. P o lla rd, 24 9 F
. 3d 738, 73 9 ( 8th Ci r. 20 01 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Eng, 14 F. 3d 165, 16 6, 16 8, 171 -7 3 ( 2d Cir. 1994), th e govern m en t’s use of W ebst er’s6 N o. 10
- 1148 st at e co nv i ct i o n fo re nha nc ementr ai se d o nl y the s ta tu
tory m i ni m um te rm . W i th o r w i thout the Info rm ati on fi l ed by the g ov ernm ent, the dist ri ct c ourtco uld have i m posed a ter m o fsi x yea rs o r l onge r. T h u s, we agr ee w i th appel l ate co un se l that i t would be fri vol ous t o argu e tha t the sent en cing cou rt com m itted plain error. F i na ll y, c o uns elc o ns i der s whethe rW eb st ermight ar gue tha t hi s pr i so n s en te nc e i s unrea son ab l y l o ng . The di st r i ctc o ur t spe ci fi ca l l y e va l ua te d W eb st er ’ s ar g um ents i n mi t i g a t i o n a nd the r e l e v a ntf a c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3(a ). W eb st er ’s p ris on te rm is w ith inth e p r o p e r ly c alc u lat ed gu id elin es ran ge an d th u s is p re su m p tiv ely re as on ab le. See R i t a v. U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U.S
. 33 8, 35 0- 51 (20 07 ); U nite d States v. M oreno-Pad il la , 60 2 F. 3d 802, 81 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. Cou n se l has not i denti fi ed a b asi s for s e t t i nga s i de tha tp r e s umpt i o n, n o rh ave we . Ac c o r din gly , w e a gr ee w ith co u n s el th at a re as on ab len es s c h all enge w oul d be fri vol ous. Counsel ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw is G RANTED and the appeal i s D IS MIS S ED .

12- 2- 10