United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 10, 2010

Decided February 11, 2010

Before

               RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

                    JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge         

               DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

Nos. 08‐2277 & 08‐2278

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

DOMINIQUE WATSON and TERANCE

TAYLOR,

Defendants‐Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 07‐CR‐286‐001

J. P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Terance Taylor was arrested less than two weeks after he entered a Milwaukee bank

with a pellet gun and left with more than $130,000 in stolen cash.  Dominique Watson, who

planned the heist and drove the getaway car, was also arrested.  Watson and Taylor pleaded

guilty to armed bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and both men received prison

sentences within their respective Guidelines range, Watson for 135 months’ imprisonment,

Taylor for 96 months.  The court also ordered restitution, to be paid jointly and severally by

Taylor and Watson, in the amount of $116,881.86.  We consolidated their appeals, and in

both cases their appointed counsel moved to withdraw because they believe any basis for

appealing would be frivolous.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Since both

defendants declined to submit statements under Circuit Rule 51(b) explaining why they

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2277 & 08‐2278 Page 2

believe their appeals have merit, we limit our review to issues identified in the facially

adequate briefs.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Neither defendant has expressed a desire to withdraw his guilty plea, so their

lawyers properly decline to explore a challenge to the voluntariness of the pleas or the

adequacy of the plea colloquies.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

We agree with counsel that any challenge to the reasonableness of the defendants’

sentences would be frivolous.  Watson and Taylor received prison terms within properly

calculated Guidelines ranges, so we would presume that their sentences were reasonable.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).  Both lawyers assert, and we agree, that there is

no evidence in the record to rebut those presumptions.  Moreover, the district court gave

sufficient consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and supported the

ultimate sentences with adequate statements of reasons.  In both cases the court explained

that within‐range sentences were necessary to deter similar conduct in the future, and to

reflect the seriousness of the crime, which in this case endangered the life of a bank teller,

who was held hostage at gunpoint.

Finally, as both attorneys point out, it would be frivolous to challenge the district

court’s restitution orders on the basis that the court failed to set a schedule of payments to

be made during the defendants’ incarceration.  Congress requires sentencing judges to set

payment schedules for defendants who cannot meet restitution obligations up front.  See 18

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).  Precisely when the schedule begins, however, is left to the court.  See

United States v. Sawyer, 521 F3d 792, 795 (7th Cir. 2008).  Here the court set payment

schedules for both defendants to begin upon their release.  This was a proper exercise of the

court’s discretion. Id.  

Accordingly, we GRANT the motions to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Watson’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.