# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ay 25, 20 10 Deci ded M ay 25, 20 10 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 3412 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. GEO RG E WATS ON- EL, D ef endant-Appellant
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, E as te rn D ivis ion . N o. 04 C R131-1 C ha rles R. N orgle, Sr. Judg e . 

### O RD E R Georg e W ats on- El, a fel on, pl eaded gui l ty to sel l i ng co cai ne to an info rm ant a nd to p os se ss in g t h re e fire ar m s (w h ich h e re c eiv ed in e x c h an ge for th e c oc ain e). See2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) ; 18 U . S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) . F orbo th co unts he w as sente nced to 15 yea rs ’ i m pr i so nm en t ( th e m an dat o r y min i m um f o rthe g un c o unt ) , wi ththe t er m s to r un concurr entl y. W ats on- El fi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal, but hi s newlyappoi nted counselnow se ek to w ith d ra w be c au se th ey ca n n otid en tify an y n on friv olo u s g ro u n d for a p p ea l. See A nders v. Ca li

forni a , 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 1967 ) . W e co nfine o ur r evi ew to the potenti ali ssues id en tifie d in c ou n se l's fac ially ad eq u at e b rie f, see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 28 9 F . 3d 968, 97 3- 74 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ), an d W at so n -E l’s re sp on se , seeC IR . R. 51 (b ). NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 3412 Page 2

On the ev e o ftr i alW ats on- El m ove d fo r substi tute counselbec ause hi s a pp oi nted l aw yerhad decl i ned to m ove f ordi sm i ssa lo n the gr ound ofse l ecti ve pros ecuti on a nd had no t pur su ed di sc o ve r y t o W at so n- El ’ s sa ti sf ac ti o n. In r efus i ngt o pr o vi de a di ffer en t l aw yer, the dist ri ct c ourtnot ed that i t was co unsel ’ s j ob to deci de w hat a rgum ents to m ake b u t a d d ed th at, at a ll ev en ts , a se lec tiv e-p ro se c u tio n ch alle n ge to th e in d ict m en t w ou ld h av e b ee n d en ied
. T h e c ou rtals o c on firm ed th at th e g ov er n m en t h ad tu rn ed ov er all disc ove rabl e m ate ri al
. At that poi nt W ats on- El deci ded to pl ead gui l ty, tho ugh he r ese rv ed the r i ght t o ar gue a t s entencing tha t the drug i nvol ved w as not cra ck and that hi s pri or convi cti ons w er e no t forvi ol ent fel oni es. A t s entencing W ats on- El’ s l aw yerm ade an o ra lm oti on, atW ats on- El’ s r equest, f or su b st itu te co u n se l. W at so n -E l th en st at ed th at h e d ist ru st ed h is law ye r, h is law ye r w ou ld no t pr es s th e ar g um en ts W at so n- El want ed, a nd he di d no t th i nkthe y wer e co m m uni ca ting effecti vel y. In additi on W ats on- El m ade hi s o w n or alm oti on, witho ut the supp or t o f counsel, to withdraw his gui l ty ple as on the gr ounds ofi nnocence and i neffecti ve as si st an ce o fc o uns el
. The c o ur t den i ed bo thmot i o ns . T he di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e al l eg at i o ns abo utc o uns elwer e des i g ne d t o de r ai lthe pr o ce eding s, a nd tha t th er e was no basi s t o setas i de the gui l ty ple as on the gr ound ofi nnocence because W ats on- El had adm i tte d und ero ath the f actualbas i s forhi s cr i m es. The c ourtthen adopted the f actual fi nd ings in the pres en ten ce inves tigation rep ort, includ ing the prob ation offi cer’s c o nc l us i o n tha tthe drugs o l d b y Wat s o n- Elh a d b e e n c r a c k
. Atthe h e a r i ngWat s o n- El voi ced no obj ecti on t o thi s dete rm i nati on o fdrug type. I n th eir A nd ers br ief, co u n se l ha ve rep re se n te d th at W at so n -E l d oe s n otw an t h is g ui l typl ea s se t as i de, y ethe c o nt r adi ct s th i s as se r ti o n in h i s Rul e 51 ( b) r es po ns e. Wats o nE lp r o p o s e s t o a r gu e th a ti tw a s e r r o rt o d e n y h i m l e a v e t o w i th d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . We w ou ld rev iew th at ru lin g for ab u se of d isc re tio n, see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si ngl e t on , 58 8 F . 3d 497, 50 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo ut os , 38 3 F . 3d 615, 61 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , but i t would be fri vol ous t o chal l enge the deci si on. W ats on- El m ade no substa nti ve ar gum ent in supp or t o f hi s m o ti o n, a nd inde ed he c o nt r adi ct ed hi s cl ai m o fi nno ce nc e byr ea ffi r m i ngtha t he bar ter ed drugs f orguns. Even without thi s dam ni ng pre senta ti on, the dist ri ct c ourtwas fre e t o h old W at so n -E l to t h e a d m iss ion s h e m ad e w h en h e p lea d ed gu ilty
. See U nited Sta tes v. Jo nes , 381 F.3d 61 5, 61 8-1 9 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U nited Sta tes v. Stew a rt, 19 8 F . 3d 984, 98 7 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99) . And as f orthe ass i sta nce that W ats on- El re cei ved fro m hi s for m erat torney, W at so n- El no w sa y s i n h i s Rul e 51 ( b) r es po ns e th atc o uns elne ve rt o l d hi m tha t bypl ea di ng gui l ty he would gi ve up hi s cl ai m s o fse l ecti ve pros ecuti on a nd waive any appell ate chal l enge to the deni alo fa m oti on byco unselto have the i nd i ctm ent di sm i sse d fo r vio lat in g h is rig h t t o a sp ee d y t ria l. See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . E l iz a l d e -A d a me, 26 2 F . 3d 637, 63 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) . But thi s purpor ted o m i ssi on was notthe theo ryo fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce th at W at so n -E l p re se n te d to th e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d so th er e is n o s u p p or t fo r it in th e re c or d
. A s i s typi cal l y the si tuati on, then, W ats on- El shoul d pu rs ue a cl ai m o fi neffecti veN o. 08
- 3412 Page 3

as sis ta n c e, if atall, in a co llat er al p ro c ee d in g w h er e t h e re c or d ca n be fu lly d ev elo p ed
. See M a ssaro v. U nited Sta tes , 538 U .S. 50 0, 50 4-0 5 (2 00 3); U nite d States v. Harris , 39 4 F . 3d 543, 557-58 (7th Cir. 2005). W at so n -E l also w an ts to ch alle n ge th e d en ials of h is m ot ion s fo r su b st itu te co u n se l. Bu t bypl eadi ng guil ty he l ostthe abi l i ty to chal l enge the fi rs t m oti on . S e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Fore m an , 329 F.3d 10 37, 103 9 (9 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nite d States v. C am pbel l, 32 4 F . 3d 497, 49 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) . And i t woul d b e fr i vo l o us t o a r g ue tha t i t was a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n fo rthe dist ri ct c ourtto deny the se cond m oti on a fterfi nd i ng tha t W ats on- El w as m oti vate d by a desi re to f or est al lthe proce edi ngs. A defe nd ant’ s v ague cl ai m s o fdi str ust a re nota su ita b le b as is for rem ov in g on e a p p oin te d law ye r infav or of an ot h er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. W o o dw a rd, 291 F.3d 95 , 108 (1s t C ir. 20 02 ); U nited Sta tes v. P o inter, 17F. 3d 1070 , 10 73 ( 7th C ir. 1994). Counsel and W ats on- El devote the re m ai nd ero fthei r subm i ssi ons to potenti al sente nci ng i ssues . F i rs t they e xam i ne wh etherW ats on- El coul d argue thathi s pri or co nv i ct i o ns i n I l l i no i s f o rr o bb ery a nd a tt empte d a r m ed r o bb ery a r e no t vi o l en t fel o ni es a nd shoul d not hav e co unted toward the re quis i te thre e fel oni es und erthe A rm ed Caree r C rim in al A c t, see18 U . S. C. § 9 24( e) ( 1) . But co unselco rr ectly c oncl ud e that thi s pot enti al i ss ue i s fr i vo l o us b ec au se r o bb ery a nd a tt empte d r o bb ery unde rI l l i no i s l aw a r e vi o l en t felo n ies . W

elch v. U nited Sta tes , — F. 3d — , 20 10 W L 17550 62, at* 1, * 16 ( 7th Ci r. M ay 4, 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. G rego ry, 591 F.3d 96 4, 96 7-6 8 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. W oods , 233 F.3d 482, 485 n . 4 (7th C ir. 2000). Counsel al so exam i ne wh etherW ats on- El coul d argue o n appeal thathi s guidel i nes ra nge was m i scal cul ate d orthathi s o ver al lpri son sente nce i s unre aso nabl e. But co unsel ha ve n ot foun d any ba sis for arguing th at th e offen se level or the crim inal-history score are incorrect . A nd a reasona blene ss argu m en t w ou ld be fri volous be cau se th e d istri ct cou rt se n te n c ed W at so n -E l to a to ta l of 15 ye ar s, th e m an d at or y m in im u m for th e g u n co u n t, see 18 U .S.C . § 92 4(e )(1) , an d 30 m on th s b elo w th e b ot to m of th e g u id elin es ran ge . U nited Sta tes v. Johns on , 580 F.3d 66 6, 67 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 461 F.3d 850 , 856 (7th C ir. 2006 ). W ats on- El w ants to chal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t the drug he so l d w as crac k and not p ow d er cocaine . H ow ever, the d rug typ e w as irrel evan t beca us e the 15-year, m andator y m i ni m um o fthe A rm ed Caree r Cri m i nalA ct det er m i ned the fl oo r f or i mpr i s o nme nt, a nd tha ti s the l e ng th o ft i me tha tWat s o n- Elr e c e i v e d. The m oti on t o w i thdraw is GRAN T E D and the appeali s D I SM I SSED .