# UnitedStates Cou rt of App eals F o r t h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 4 Submi tte d November 4, 2014 Deci ded November 4, 2014

Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circ uit Judge MICHAEL S . KANNE, Circ uit Judge ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge Nos. 14-1287 & 14-1291 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff–Appell ee,

v. ANTQUINT L. COX , Defen dant–Appellant. Appeals from the Uni ted S tate s Di stric t Court for t he Central Dis tr i ct of Illi noi s. Nos. 1:05-cr-10084- 001 & 13-10018-001 Joe Bi lly McDade, Judge

. O R D E R After serving ti me for a series of drug convi cti ons, Antquint Cox violated the ter ms of hi s su perv i sed release by using and dealing cocaine. Cox admitted to each of those violations . The di stric t courtrev oke d hi s su perv i si on and i mposed a 12-m onth ter m of reim pris onment. Based on the same cri minal condu ct, Cox also pleaded gui lty to po sses si on of cocai ne base w i th i ntent t o dis tr ibute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B), and possess i on of a fi rear m during a drug t raffi cki ng crim e, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The di stric t courti mposed sen tences of 262 months’ and 60 m onths’ i mpri sonment, respecti vely , to r un c onsecuti vely to e ach other and to the ter m of reim pris onment. Cox fi led a notic e of appeal i n each c ase, bu t hi s appointed att or ney asserts that all possible clai ms in these consoli dated appeals are frivolous and moves to withdraw u nder Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cox has not accepted our invitati on to comment on NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Nos. 14-1287 & 14-1291 Page 2

couns el’s motion. See C I R
. R. 51(b) . Counsel submi tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature of these cases and addresses the is sues that appeals of this kin d mi ght be ex pected to i nvolv e. Becaus e the analysi s in the brief appears to be t horo ugh, we li mi t our rev i ew to the subjects coun sel di scu sses . See Un ited States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner

, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). Counsel tells us that Co x does notwi sh to have his gui lty plea set asid e, and thus couns el appropr i ately fo rg oes di scu ssing the v oluntarines s of the plea or t he adequacy of Cox ’s plea colloquy. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United S tat es v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). Couns el does not say whether Cox wants to di spute the rev ocation of hi s su perv i sed release, but nonetheless s uchan arg ument would b e frivolous bec ause Cox admi tte d violati ng condi tions of hi s release, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and revo cati on and reim pris onment were mandator y becaus e one of tho se condi tions prohibi ts unlaw ful poss essi on of contr olled subs tances, see id

. § 3583(g)(1); United S tat es v. Hondras , 296 F.3d 601, 602 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel next consi ders whether Co x could chall enge the r easonablenes s of hi s pris on sentence, and w e agr ee wi th hi m that such a challen ge would be fri vo lous. Fi rst, the di stric t courtproper ly desi gnated Co x a career offender based on hi s two prior felony convic tions for contr olled-sub stance offens es, see U.S.S .G. § 4B1.1(a) . Second, Cox ’s 262-month sen tence was at the botto m of hi s cal culated gui delines range (262–327 months, bas ed on a to tal offense level of 34 and cri minal-hi stor y categ or y of VI). Counsel gi ves no r eason to dis reg ard the pr esum ption that thi s wi thi n-gui delines sentence i s reasonable, see Rita v. Uni ted States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Woma ck , 732 F.3d 745, 747 (7th Cir. 2013), and we see none. Th e court consi dered t he relev ant 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a) fac tor s—inclu ding the natur e and ci rcums tances of hi s offense ( especi ally the way he mov ed up the ladder to become a major cocain e supp li er), hi s hi stor y and characteris tic s (parti cularly hi s repeat o ffens es in spi te o f hi s i ntelli gence, leadershi p ski lls, and potent i al), and the need to pro tect t he commu ni ty from si mi lar crim es. Further more, Co x r ecei ved the statutor y-mini mumsentence of 60 months’ i mpri sonment for the firearm convic tion, s o a challenge to its reasonableness necess arily would b e frivolous. See Un ited States v. Jo hnson , 580 F.3d 666, 673 (7th Cir. 2009). Regar ding the per i od of r ei mpri sonment for the superv i sed-release vi olation, couns el di d not identi fy a basi s for challenging the g ui delines range of 51 to 63 months—statutor i ly capped at 60 months, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)—bas ed on a cri minal-hi stor y categ or y of VI and hi s “Grade A” contro lled-s ubs tance violati ons.Nos. 14-1287 & 14-1291 Page 3

See U.S.S .G. §§ 7B1.1(a) (1), 7B1.4( a); United S tat es v. Sn yder, 635 F.3d 956, 960 (7th Cir. 2011). Gi ven the cour t’s di scu ssi on of re levant § 3553(a) factors, as noted abov e, we would not conclu de that a below-gui delines s entence of 12 months was plainly unreasonable. See Un ited States v. Berry, 583 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2009); United S tat es v. Neal , 512 F.3d 427, 438–39 (7th Cir. 2008). Counsel’s m otion to withdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMIS SED.