United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuit

Chicago,Illinois60604

SubmittedAugust27,2009

DecidedAugust28,2009

AmendedSeptember9,2009

Before

WILLIAMJ.BAUER,CircuitJudge

RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge

DIANEP.WOOD,CircuitJudge

No.083947

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,

PlaintiffAppellee,

v.

GUADALUPEMACIASMARTINEZ,

DefendantAppellant.

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict

CourtfortheEasternDistrictof

Wisconsin.

No.08CR93

CharlesN.Clevert,Jr.,

Judge.

ORDER

GuadalupeMaciasMartinezpleadedguiltytoillegallyreenteringtheUnitedStates

afterbeingdeportedfollowinghisprisontermfordrugtrafficking.See8U.S.C.

§1326(b)(2).Thedistrictcourtappliedthe16levelincreaseforaggravatedfelonies,

seeU.S.S.G.§2L1.2,incalculatingaguidelinesimprisonmentrangeof57to71months,but

imposedabelowguidelinesterm,52months.MaciasMartinezfiledanoticeofappeal,but

hiscounselisunabletodiscernanynonfrivolousclaimstopursueandseekstowithdraw.

SeeAndersv.California,386U.S.738(1967).Weaddressonlythepotentialissuesidentified

incounsel’ssupportingbriefandMaciasMartinez’sresponseunderCIR.R.51(b).

SeeUnitedStatesv.Schuh,289F.3d968,97374(7thCir.2002).

NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION

Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith

Fed.R.App.P.32.1
No.083947 Page2

MaciasMartinezreenteredtheUnitedStatesayearafterhewasdeported,and

withinsixmonthshewasagainconvictedinWisconsincourtoftraffickingcocaine.Hewas

sentencedto90daysinprisonand,ontopofthat,reimprisonedforapproximately18

monthsforviolatingthetermsofthesupervisedreleaseimposedaspartofhisoriginal

traffickingsentence.Duringthattime,hewastakenintofederalcustody,wherehepleaded

guiltytotheimmigrationviolation.Thedistrictcourtimposedanewsentencerunning

concurrentlywiththereimprisonmentterm.

MaciasMartinezdoesnotwishtochallengehisguiltyplea,socounselappropriately

refrainsfromdiscussingpossibleargumentsaboutthevoluntarinessofthepleaorthe

adequacyofthepleacolloquy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Knox,287F.3d667,671(7thCir.2002).

Counselfirstconcludes,andweagree,thatanychallengetothereasonablenessof

thesentencewouldbefrivolous.Thedistrictcourtconsideredatlengththesentencing

factorssetforthin18U.S.C.§3553(a)(2)andimposedasentencebelowtheguidelines

range.Weaccordawithinguidelinessentenceapresumptionofreasonableness,see Rita

v.UnitedStates,127S.Ct.2456,246264(2007);UnitedStatesv.Shannon,518F.3d494,496

(7thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Mykytiuk,415F.3d606,608(7thCir.2005),andthe

presumptionisstrengthenedwhenthedefendantiscomplainingaboutasentencebelowthe

guidelinesrangeapplicabletohisoffense.

CounselthenconsiderswhetherMaciasMartinezcouldarguethatthedistrictcourt

shouldhaveimposedalesserprisontermbasedontheallegedlysubstandardconditionsof

hispresentencingconfinementinWisconsinprisons.AtsentencingMaciasMartinez

assertedthatforthepastninemonthshespent19hoursadaylockedinhiscellwithlimited

accesstoatelevision,andthat,asaresultofhistransfersbetweenstateandfederalcustody,

hewasunabletoaccessallofthefundsinhisinmateaccount.Andbecausehecouldnot

usethosefunds,hecontinued,hewentwithoutneededdentalcareandsundriesthatwould

haveeasedhistimeinjail.But,ascounselnotes,conditionsofpresentencingconfinement

arenotamongthefactorsthatjudgesmustconsiderincraftingasentence.See18U.S.C.

3553(a)(2);UnitedStatesv.Turner,569F.3d637,642(7thCir.2009).Eventhoughalower

sentencemightbejustifiedbyconditionsofpresentencingconfinementthatare

extraordinarilyharsh,UnitedStatesv.Campos,541F.3d735,751(7thCir.2008),therearetwo

reasonswhyitwouldbefrivolousforMaciasMartineztoclaimthatthedistrictcourthadto

addressthecircumstancesofhisdetention.First,hepresentednodocumentationshowing

thatconditionswereasunpleasantashealleged.Seeid.Second,puttingasidethe

evidentiaryissue,theconditionsMaciasMartinezdescribedwerenotunusuallyharshand

thusdidnotmeritthejudge’sattention.SeeUnitedStates v.RamirezGutierrez,503F.3d643,
No.083947 Page3

646(7thCir.2007)(poorventilation,inadequateopportunitiestoexercise,andlackofdental

carenotsoharshastowarrantspecialconsideration).

Thefinalpotentialissueidentifiedbycounselisthedistrictcourt’sfailuretoconsider

theabsenceofa“fasttrack”programforillegalreentrycasesintheEasternDistrictof

Wisconsin.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatasentencingjudgeinadistrictwithouta“fast

track”programmaynottakeintoaccountthefactthatsimilardefendantsindistricts

operatingsuchprogramscouldreceivelowersentences.SeeUnitedStatesv.PachecoDiaz,

506F.3d545,552(7thCir.2007);UnitedStatesv.GaliciaCardenas,443F.3d553,555(7thCir.

2006).Thosecasesall,however,predateKimbroughv.UnitedStates,128S.Ct.558(2007),

andothercircuitsaresplitonwhetherthatdecisionrequiresthemtoreevaluateadistrict

court’sdiscretiontoconsiderfasttrackdisparities.CompareUnitedStatesv.Rodríguez,527

F.3d221,229(1stCir.2008)(overrulingpreviouscasesthatheldadistrictcourtlacked

discretion), withUnitedStatesv.GomezHerrera,523F.3d554,562(5thCir.2008),United

Statesv.VegaCastillo,540F.3d1235,123839(11thCir.2008),andUnitedStatesv.

GonzalezZotelo,556F.3d736,740(9thCir.2009).Evenso,becauseMaciasMartineznever

askedthecourttoexercisediscretion,itwouldbefrivoloustoargueonappealthatit

abuseditsdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Filipiak,466F.3d582,584(7thCir.2006).

MaciasMartinezcontendsthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveshortenedhissentence

basedontheamountoftimehehadalreadyservedonhisreimprisonment.Hepointsto

U.S.S.G.§5G1.3(b)(1),whichrequiresadistrictcourttoreduceasentencetoreflecttime

servedonanundischargedprisontermthatwasimposedforanoffensealreadytakeninto

accountbytheguidelinescalculation.SeeUnitedStatesv.Bangsengthong,550F.3d681,682

(7thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Knight,562F.3d1314,1329(11thCir.2009).ByMacias

Martinez’sreckoning,properapplicationof§5G1.3(b)wouldhaveshavedeightmonthsoff

hisprisonterm.Yetapplicationnote2(B)specificallyexplainsthat§5G1.3(b)doesnot

applyinacaselikethis,wherethecurrentoffenseisillegalentryandtheprioroffensewas

anaggravatedfelony.SeeUnitedStatesv.MoralesCastillo,314F.3d561,56364(11thCir.

2002).

Lastly,MaciasMartinezproposesarguingthathiscounselperformeddeficientlyby

failingtoaskthedistrictcourttoconsiderfasttrackdisparitiesand§5G1.3(b).Butaclaim

ofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisbetterlefttocollateralappeal,wherearecorddevoted

tocounsel’sperformancecanbedeveloped,anditwouldbefrivoloustoarguethatthisis

theexceptionalcasewhereineffectivenessisapparentfromthetrialrecord.UnitedStates

v.Recendiz, 557F.3d511,531(7thCir.2009);seeUnitedStatesv.Harris,394F.3d543,55758

(7thCir.2005).MaciasMartinezbelievesthatthecurrentrecordshowsegregiousbehavior

oncounsel’spartsimplybecausehefailedtoraisethoseissuesinthedistrictcourt,butwe
No.083947 Page4

wouldgive“everyindulgence”tothepossibilitythatcounsel’sdecisionwastactical,

Recendiz,557F.3dat531.

Accordingly,weGRANTcounsel’smotiontowithdrawandDISMISStheappeal.