United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 23, 2020 

Decided October 23, 2020 

Before 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1308 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER E. BRANCH, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Illinois. 

No. 3:19-CR-30043-SMY-1 

Staci M. Yandle, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Christopher Branch pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment, which was 14 

months over the applicable guidelines range, followed by three years of supervised 

release. Branch appealed, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous 

and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 746 (1967). Counsel’s brief 

explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that an appeal of this kind 

would be expected to involve. Because his analysis appears thorough, and Branch has 

not responded to his motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that 

counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 20-1308 Page 2 

Branch pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon after he displayed a 

handgun tucked into his jeans at an auto shop during a dispute over repairs to his car. 

At that time, Branch had three felony convictions, including two for possessing a 

firearm as a felon. The presentence investigation report calculated a guidelines range of 

37 to 46 months in prison, which the parties accepted without objection. As part of 

Branch’s plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend a within-guidelines sentence 

of 42 months. After receiving this recommendation, the court considered the 

circumstances of the offense—including the fact that Branch did not merely possess a 

gun but brandished it threateningly—and his prior firearm convictions. Viewing these 

circumstances as seriously aggravating factors, the court sentenced Branch to an 

above-guidelines prison term of 60 months. 

Counsel states that, after he consulted with Branch about the risks and benefits of 

withdrawing his guilty plea, Branch confirmed that he wished to challenge only the 

length of his sentence. Counsel thus properly refrains from exploring the adequacy of 

the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 

348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). 

 

Counsel first considers whether Branch could argue that the district court erred 

in calculating the guidelines range and appropriately concludes that any such argument 

would be frivolous. As counsel notes, Branch did not dispute any of the facts in the PSR, 

nor does the record contain any basis for doing so. The district court correctly 

determined that Branch’s base offense level was 20 because he possessed a 

semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(i)(I). It then properly applied a three-level reduction because Branch 

accepted responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court also rightly placed 

Branch in criminal history category IV based on his three prior felony convictions. 

See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(a), 5A. Thus, Branch has no basis to challenge the guidelines 

determination. 

We also agree with counsel that any challenge to Branch’s sentence as 

substantively unreasonable would be futile. We review the substantive reasonableness 

of a sentence for abuse of discretion, United States v. Bridgewater, 950 F.3d 928, 934 

(7th Cir. 2020), and we “will uphold an above-guidelines sentence so long as the district 

court offered an adequate statement of its reasons, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

for imposing such a sentence.” United States v. Musgraves, 883 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 

2018). 
No. 20-1308 Page 3 

Here, the district court amply explained that the guidelines range did not 

account adequately for the aggravating circumstances of the crime: Branch did not just 

possess a gun but displayed it to intimidate a mechanic. And his criminal history 

included not merely three convictions, but two that were identical to his new one, plus 

violations of the terms of his supervised release, thus demonstrating a lack of respect 

for the law. The court considered Branch’s main mitigating arguments that he had a 

difficult upbringing and young children to support. But it reasonably explained that, in 

light of the aggravating factors, an above-guidelines sentence was needed to serve the 

purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including specific deterrence, 

promoting respect for the law, and protecting the public. Given the court’s thorough 

account of its reasons for its sentence, and its accord with the sentencing statute, any 

challenge to the substantive reasonableness of Branch’s sentence would be frivolous. 

Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.