# United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuitChicago,Illinois60604SubmittedAugust27,2009

DecidedAugust28,2009AmendedSeptember9,2009

Before
WILLIAMJ.BAUER,CircuitJudge

RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
DIANEP.WOOD,CircuitJudge

No.083947
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,PlaintiffAppellee,

v.
GUADALUPEMACIASMARTINEZ, DefendantAppellant

. AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictof Wisconsin.

No.08CR93
CharlesN.Clevert,Jr.,Judge

.
ORDERGuadalupeMaciasMartinezpleadedguiltytoillegallyreenteringtheUnitedStatesafterbeingdeportedfollowinghisprisontermfordrugtrafficking.See8U.S.C.§1326(b)(2).Thedistrictcourtappliedthe 16levelincreaseforaggravatedfelonies,
seeU.S.S.G.§2L1.2,incalculatingaguidelinesimprisonmentrangeof57to71months,butimposedabelowguidelinesterm,52months.Macias Martinezfiledanoticeofappeal,buthiscounselisunabletodiscernanynonfrivolous claimstopursueandseekstowithdraw.SeeAndersv.California ,386U.S.738(1967).Weaddressonlythepotentialissuesidentifiedincounsel’ssupportingbriefandMaciasMartinez’sresponseunderC IR .R.51(b).SeeUnitedStatesv.Schuh ,289F.3d968,97374(7thCir.2002).NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITIONTobecitedonlyinaccordancewithFed.R.App.P.32.1No.083947 Page2

MaciasMartinezreenteredtheUnitedStatesa yearafterhewasdeported,andwithinsixmonthshewasagainconvictedinWisconsincourtoftraffickingcocaine.Hewassentencedto90daysinprisonand,ontopofthat,reimprisonedforapproximately18monthsforviolatingthetermsofthesupervisedreleaseimposedaspartofhisoriginaltraffickingsentence.Duringthattime,hewastakenintofederalcustody,wherehepleadedguiltytotheimmigrationviolation.Thedistrictcourtimposedanewsentencerunningconcurrentlywiththereimprisonmentterm.MaciasMartinezdoesnotwishtochallenge hisguiltyplea,socounselappropriatelyrefrainsfromdiscussingpossibleargumentsaboutthevoluntarinessofthepleaortheadequacyofthepleacolloquy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Knox ,287F.3d667,671(7thCir.2002).Counselfirstconcludes,andweagree,thatanychallengetothereasonablenessofthesentencewouldbefrivolous.Thedistrictcourtconsideredatlengththesentencingfactorssetforthin18U.S.C.§3553(a)(2)andimposedasentencebelowtheguidelinesrange.Weaccordawithinguidelinessentence apresumptionofreasonableness,see Ritav.UnitedStates ,127S.Ct.2456,246264(2007);UnitedStatesv.Shannon ,518F.3d494,496(7thCir.2008); UnitedStatesv.Mykytiuk,415F.3d606,608(7thCir.2005),andthepresumptionisstrengthenedwhenthedefendanti scomplainingaboutasentencebelowtheguidelinesrangeapplicabletohisoffense.

CounselthenconsiderswhetherMaciasMartinezcouldarguethatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveimposedalesserprisontermbasedontheallegedlysubstandardconditionsofhispresentencingconfinementinWisconsinprisons.AtsentencingMaciasMartinezassertedthatforthepastninemonthshespent19hoursadaylockedinhiscellwithlimitedaccesstoatelevision,andthat,asaresulto fhistransfersbetweenstateandfederalcustody,hewasunabletoaccessallofthefundsinhisinmateaccount.Andbecausehecouldnotusethosefunds,hecontinued,hewentwithoutneededdentalcareandsundriesthatwouldhaveeasedhistimeinjail.But, ascounselnotes,conditionsofpresentencingconfinementarenotamongthefactorsthatjudgesmustconsiderincraftingasentence.See18U.S.C.3553(a)(2);UnitedStatesv.Turner,569F.3d637,642(7thCir.2009).Eventhoughalowersentencemightbejustifiedbyconditionsofpresentencingconfinementthatareextraordinarilyharsh,UnitedStatesv.Campos ,541F.3d735,751(7thCir.2008), therearetworeasonswhyitwouldbefrivolousforMaciasMartinez toclaimthatthedistrictcourthadtoaddressthecircumstancesofhisdetention.First,hepresentednodocumentationshowingthatconditionswereasunpleasantashealleged.Seeid. Second,puttingasidetheevidentiaryissue,theconditionsMaciasMartinez describedwerenotunusuallyharshandthusdidnotmeritthejudge’sattention.SeeUnitedStates v.RamirezGutierrez ,503F.3d643,No.083947 Page3646(7thCir.2007)(poorventilation,inadequateopportunitiestoexercise,andlackofdentalcarenotsoharshastowarrantspecialconsideration).Thefinalpotentialissueidentifiedbycounsel isthedistrictcourt’sfailuretoconsidertheabsenceofa“fasttrack”programforillegalreentrycasesintheEasternDistrictofWisconsin.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatasentencingjudgeinadistrictwithouta“fasttrack”programmaynottakeintoaccountthefactthatsimilardefendantsindistrictsoperatingsuchprogramscouldreceivelowersentences.SeeUnitedStatesv.PachecoDiaz ,506F.3d545,552(7thCir.2007);UnitedStatesv.GaliciaCardenas ,443F.3d553,555(7thCir.2006).Thosecasesall,however,predateKimbroughv.UnitedStates ,128S.Ct.558(2007),andothercircuitsaresplitonwhetherthatdecisionrequiresthemtoreevaluateadistrictcourt’sdiscretiontoconsiderfasttrackdisparities.CompareUnitedStatesv.Rodríguez ,527F.3d221,229(1stCir.2008)(overrulingpreviouscasesthatheldadistrictcourtlacked discretion), withUnitedStatesv.GomezHerrera ,523F.3d554,562(5thCir.2008), UnitedStatesv.VegaCastillo ,540F.3d1235,123839(11thCir.2008),andUnitedStatesv. Gonzalez Zotelo ,556F.3d736,740(9thCir.2009).Evenso,becauseMaciasMartinezneveraskedthecourttoexercisediscretion,itwould befrivoloustoargueonappealthatitabuseditsdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Filipiak,466F.3d582,584(7thCir.2006).

MaciasMartinezcontendsthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveshortenedhissentencebasedontheamountoftimehehadalre adyservedonhisreimprisonment.HepointstoU.S.S.G.§5G1.3(b)(1),whichrequiresadistrictcourttoreduceasentencetoreflecttimeservedonanundischargedprisontermthatwas imposedforanoffensealreadytakenintoaccountbytheguidelinescalculation.SeeUnitedStatesv.Bangsengthong ,550F.3d681,682(7thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Knight,562F.3d1314,1329(11thCir.2009).ByMaciasMartinez’sreckoning,properapplicationof§5G1.3(b)wouldhaveshavedeightmonthsoffhisprisonterm.Yetapplicationnote2(B)specificallyexplainsthat§5G1.3(b)doesnotapplyinacaselikethis,wherethecurrentoffenseisillegalentryandtheprioroffensewasanaggravatedfelony.SeeUnitedStatesv.MoralesCastillo ,314F.3d561,56364(11thCir. 2002). Lastly,MaciasMartinezproposesarguingthathiscounselperformeddeficientlybyfailingtoaskthedistrictcourttoconsiderfast trackdisparitiesand§5G1.3(b).Butaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisbetterlefttocollateralappeal,wherearecorddevotedtocounsel’sperformancecanbedeveloped,anditwouldbefrivoloustoarguethatthisistheexceptionalcasewhereineffectivenessisapparentfromthetrialrecord.UnitedStatesv.Recendiz 

### , 557F.3d511,531(7thCir.2009);seeUnitedStatesv.Harris ,394F.3d543,55758(7thCir.2005).MaciasMartinezbelievesthatthecurrentrecordshowsegregiousbehavioroncounsel’spartsimplybecausehefailedtoraise thoseissuesinthedistrictcourt,butweNo.083947 Page4wouldgive“everyindulgence”tothepossibilitythatcounsel’sdecisionwastactical, Recendiz ,557F.3dat531.Accordingly,weGRANTcounsel’smotiontowithdrawandDISMISStheappeal.