T he H onora ble Ph il ip G
. Reinh ard , U nited Sta t e s D istri ct Jud ge for th e N orthe rn * Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s, W est er n Divi si on, si tting bydesi gnati on 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Jul y 2 9, 20 09 * Deci ded J uly30 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, C ircu it Judge JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 3605 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. J OH N J
. M I LLER, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe Eas te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. 08- CR
- 84 P h ilip G . Re in h ar d ,* Judg e . O R D E R J ohn M i l l erpl eaded gui l ty to one count o fthr eat eni ng to ki l la j ud ge i n re tal i ati on f orper f or m i ng hi s o ffi ci alduti es, wh i ch car ri es a s tatutor y m axi m um o f12 0 m onths’ im p ris on m en t, see 18 U
. S. C. § 1 15( a) ( 1) ( B), and one count o fusi ng an i nstr um ent o f in te rs ta te co m m er c e t o th re at en to d es tr oy a b u ild in g, s e ei d § 844(e). Th e d istri ct cou rt cal cul ate d a gui del i ne i m pri sonm ent r ange of27to 33 m onths, but sente nced M i l l erto 40 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t fo r ea c h co u n t, to ru n co n c u rre n tly
. M iller filed a n ot ice of ap p ea l, NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 3605 Page 2

bu t his ap p ointed l aw yer seeks to w ithd raw un d er A nders v. Ca li forni a , 386 U
. S. 738 (1967), because he i s unabl e t o disc er n a no nfr i vol ous i ssue to pu rs ue. Counsel ’ s s up port i ng br i ef is fa c ially ad eq u at e, an d M iller h as filed a re sp on se op p os in g c ou n se l’s s u b m iss ion
. See C ir. R. 5 1(b)
. We l i m i t o urr ev i ew t o the po te nt i ali ss ue s i den ti fi ed i n c o uns el ’ s br i efa nd M iller’s res p on se . See U nited Sta tes v. Sch uh , 289 F. 3d 968, 97 3- 74 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. T h e d ist u rb in g s er ies of ev en ts be ga n w ith th e d ism iss al of M iller’s ba n kr u p tc y s u it inth e E as te rn D ist ric t o f W isc on sin in 2 00 7. SeeM il le r v. A sb ach , N o. 06
- 3628 , 23 4 F ed. Appx. 4 13 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( unpub l i sh ed)
. S ev er almonths l at erhe wentt o a Ki nk o s an d f axed si x ti m es an i denti call ett erexpre ssing hi s desi re to ki l lthe bankr up tcy j ud ge presi ding ove r the c ase and to bl ow up the cour thouse i n M i l w aukee bec ause “[ y] ou guys have rui n [ si c] m y l i fe . . . . ” The i ntended reci pie nts o fthe f ax i ncl ud ed the Dist ri ct o f Col um bi a, a Ch i cago l aw fi rm , and the W i sco nsi n Gover nor ’ s Offi ce, tho ugh none ofthem re port ed noti ci ng i t. M i l l erdi d not f ax the l ett erto the cour thouse i tse l f, but l aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s info rm ed the bankr uptcy j ud ge ofthe l ett ersho rt l y b ef or e M i l l erwas appr eh en ded. An inv es ti g at i o n un co ve r ed no e vi den ce tha t M i l l eri nt en ded to c ar r y o ut the threa ts, but al lj ud ges fro m the federa lco urtho use in M i l w aukee were re cused fro m presi ding ove r the c ri m i nalcas e, wh i ch w as tr ansfer re d to Dist ri ct Jud ge W i l l i am Gri esba ch i n Green Bay. Afte r M i l l erwas re port ed to have m ade post

- ar re st death thr eat s a gainst J ud ge Gri esba ch as w el las cer tain em plo yee s in M i l w aukee ’ s federa lco urtho use, the case w as tra n sfe rre d on c e a ga into D ist ric t Ju d ge P h ilip R ein h ar d in R oc kfo rd
. C ou n se l firstad d re ss es w h et h er M iller c ou ld ch alle n ge th e v olu n ta rin es s o f h is gu ilty p lea
. C ou n se l as se rt s t h atM iller h as ex p re ss ed a d es ire to w ith d ra w h is gu ilty p lea
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox, 2 87F
. 3d 66 7, 6 70
- 71 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Co uns elc o ns i der s ar g ui ng th at th e d istri ct cou rt com m itted plain error du ring the p lea coll oqu y by fai ling to inform M iller th atth e c ou rth ad th e a u th or ity to ord er res tit u tio n an d forfe itu re , F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 (b )(1) (J), (K ); th ata fals e a n sw er co u ld res u lt in a p erj u ry p ro se c u tio n, F ED . R. C RIM . P. (b )(1) (A ); or th ath e h ad a rig h t t o c om p el w itn es se s t o a tt en d tria l, F ED . R. C RIM . P. (b )(1) (E ). Because M i l l erneve r chal l enged the suffi ci ency ofthe col l oquy be f or e the di str i ct c ou rt, ou r re vie w w ou ld be lim ite d to a se ar c h for p lain err or, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Vonn , 53 5 U .S. 55 , 59 (2 00 2); U nite d States v. G ri ff in , 52 1 F
. 3d 727, 73 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , a sta nd ar d that cou ns el correctly d eterm ines M il ler cou ld n ot satisfy. To ens ure the volu nt ariness of a g ui l typl ea, the di st r i ctc o ur t m us t co nduc t a co l l o quytha t su bs ta nt i al l y c o m pl i es wi ththe re q u ire m en ts of Fe d er al R u le of C rim in al P ro c ed u re 11 , bu t t h e c ou rtd oe s n otco m m it pl ain e r r o rb y o m i tt i nge i th eri r r el ev an t i nf o r m at i o n o ri nf o r m at i o n the de fen dan t l ea r ns fro m an ot h er so u rc e, su c h as a p lea ag re em en t. SeeU nite d States v. B lalock, 32 1 F
. 3d 686, 68 8 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. D river, 24 2 F
. 3d 767, 77 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. Even a ssum i ng tha tN o. 08
- 3605 Page 3

the c ourther e o m i tte d the info rm ati on co unseli denti fi es, tho se om i ssi ons w oul d not const i tute pla i n er ro r because the cour t nev ero rder ed re sti tuti on o r f or fei ture , and the ple a agreem en t inform ed M il ler th at he had a ri gh t to com p el w itness es an d that f alse answ ers d u rin g th e p lea h ea rin g c ou ld res u lt in a p erj u ry p ro se c u tio n . The r emai ni ngpo te nt i ala r g um en ts r ai se d b y c o uns elc o nc ern the l eg al i tyo fthe se nt en ce . F o ri ns ta nc e, c o uns elc o ns i der s ch al l en g i nga t wo- l ev elupwar d a dj us tment M iller re c eiv ed for offe n se s t h atinv olv ed m or e t h an tw o th re at s. U .S.S.G . § 2A 6.1 (b )(2)
. The dis tr i ct c ourtappli ed the gui del i ne be cause i t be l i eve d that e ach o fM i l l er ’ s f ax tr an sm iss ion s c on st itu te d a se p ar at e t h re atreg ar d les s w h et h er an yo n e n ot ice d th em . Cou ns ela sk s i fthe c o ur t co r r ec tly a ppl i ed th e g ui del i ne s co ns i der i ngtha t th er e i s no ev id en c e t h atan y of t h e in te n d ed rec ip ien ts w er e a c tu ally aw ar e o f th e t h re at en in g fa x . A lthou gh w e hav e not sp ecifi cally ad d ressed w he th er § 2A 6.1(b)(2) ap p li es ifa vi cti m i s unaw ar e o fthe thre ate ni ng co m m unica ti on, the Four th Ci rcui t has hel d that pr oo f o fi nt en t to c o m m uni ca te a thr ea t i s no t a pr er equi si te t o the a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe g ui del i ne, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sp r i ng, 30 5 F
. 3d 276, 28 1 ( 4th Ci r. 20 02)
. Reg ar dle ss, i n thi s ca se, ev en tho ugh the i nt e nd e d recip ients m ay n oth av e k n ow n of M iller’s th re at en in g fa x es , on e o f h is i nt e nd e d v i c t i ms , the bankr up tcy j ud ge, was m ade aware ofi t be f or e M i l l erwas apprehended. A nd since e ach di sse m i nati on o fan i denti calthr eat eni ng co m m unica ti on c on st itu te s a d iffer en t t h re atu n d er § 2A 6.1 (b )(2) , U nited Sta tes v. Fra z er, 39 1 F
. 3d 866, 87 0- 72 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) , we agr ee w i th co unselthati t would be fri vol ous t o ar gue that M i l l erhad n otse n t a t le as t t w o th re at s. Cou ns ela l so a ddr es se s whethe rthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed when i t r efus ed to g r o up M i l l er ’ s two c o unt s unde rU. S
. S
. G. § 2 A6. 1(b) ( 2) c m t. n. 2. S ec ti o n 2 A6. 1(b) ( 2) pr o hibi ts the s e n t e n c in gc o u r tfr o m g r o u p i n gc o u n t s i fth e d e fe n d a n tth r e a t e n s mo r e th a n o n e v i c t i m, an d the c o ur t he r e co nc l ude d tha t th er e wer e th r ee v i ct i m s o fM i l l er ’ s th r ea te ni ng l ett er — the b ankr up tcy j ud ge, the U ni ted S tat es, and the peopl e in the cour thouse
. Counsel consi ders ar gui ng tha t the bank ruptcy j ud ge w as the o nl y v i cti m o fM i l l er ’ s l ett er ; so ci ety, so the a rgum ent g oes , was the “onl y i denti fi abl e v i cti m fro m the thre at to destr oy a federa l c ou rt h ou se .” M iller’s co u n ts sh ou ld n otbe gro u p ed u n d er U .S.S.G . § 2A 6.1 (b )(2) if h is l et te ri nt en ded to t ar g etmor e th ano ne v i ct i m , e ve n i fthe l et te rdi d no t i den ti fy the add i ti onalvi cti m s bynam e. See U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 55 1 F
. 3d 1167, 11 73- 74 & n. 4 ( 10th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. A delm a n, 16 8 F
. 3d 84, 8 7 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 9)
. T hi s po te nt i ala r g um en t i s ind eed fri vol ous b ecause , as co unselpoi nts o ut, M i l l er ’ s l ett erexpre sse d a desi re to bl ow up the cour thouse i n or der t o getr eve nge o n “yo u guys, ” a nd notj ust the bank ruptcy j udg e. T hus M i l l erthr ea te ne d m o r e th ano ne pe r so n, e ve n i fthe b an k r upt cyj udg e was the on ly on e h e id en tifie d by n am e.N o. 08
- 3605 Page 4

Counselal so consi ders w hetherthatthe dist ri ct c ourtsho uld nothave co nsi dered at s e nt e nc ingthe a ffi da v i t s o fthe j a i l ho us e i nfo r man t s wh o r e po r t e d tha tMi l l e rma de ad d iti ona l p ost-arrest th reats. T he se affi d avits p layed a key rol e in the d istri ct cou rt’s anal ysi s o fthe 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) f acto rs and i ts ult i m ate deci si on t o i m pose a s entence ab o ve the r ec o m m en ded i m pr i so nm en t r an g e. Co uns elc o ns i der s ar g ui ngtha t th e a ffi d a v i t s w e r e u n r e l i ab l e b e c a u s e o fth e qu e s t i o n ab l e c r e d ib i l i ty o fth e i rs o u r c e . We gener al l y deferto a sente nci ng co urt’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on, ev en wh en i t cr edi ts in for m at ion from ad m itt ed liars , con vic te d felon s, or gov er n m en t in for m an ts . U nited Sta tes v. C la rk, 5 38 F
. 3d 80 3, 8 13 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. In thi s ca se i t woul d b e fr i vo l o us t o c ha l l en g e th e d istri ct cou rt’s cred ibi li ty find ing beca us e the se j ailhou se inform an ts, w hom the cou rt deem ed re l i abl e, as ser ted thatM i l l erm ade addit i onalpost
- ar re st thre ats , and M i l l erneve r re b u tt ed th eir te st im on y. F i na l l y, c o uns elc o ns i der s ar g ui ngtha t M i l l er ’ s se nt en ce , whi chwas s ev enmonths abov e hi s guidel i nes r ange, was unreas onabl y hi gh. W e wil luphol d as r eas onabl e a sen ten ce th at ex ceed s the range reco m m en d ed by the guid eli ne s as long as the district cou rt ap p lies th e § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs an d art icu lat es a c om p ellin g jus tific at ion for th e s en te n c e. U nite d States v. B artl et t, 567F.3d 90 1, 90 9 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Abb as , 56 0 F
. 3d 660, 66 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Co uns elc o r r ec tly c o nc l ude s th atthi s ar g um en t woul d b e fr i vo l o us because the dist ri ct c ourttho ro ughl y a nal yze d the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs and deter m i ned that M i l l er ’ s 4 0- m onth s entence was neces sar y in l i ght o fhi s pos t- ar re st thre ats ag ai nst federa l o ffi ci al s, the di srupt i o n the y c au se d t o the j udi ci alpr o ce ss , a nd hi s fes te r i nga ng ero ve rthe bankr up tcy case . I n hi s 5 1( b) r esponse M i l l erpro poses to ar gue that c ounselwas i neffecti ve f ornot c h alle n gin g h is in d ict m en t b ec au se th er e w as n o e vid en c e t h ath e in te n d ed to ca rry ou t h is th re at s; h e m en tio n s, for ex am p le, th ath e n ev er p os se ss ed an y e x p los ive s o r fire ar m s. T h is p oten tial argu m en t w ou ld be fri volous for nu m erou s reason s. Fi rst ch all en ges to cou ns el’ s effe c tiv en es s s h ou ld alm os t a lw ay s b e b ro u gh t o n co llat er al re vie w an d n otd ire c t a p p ea l. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 546 F.3d 801 , 814 (7th C ir. 2008). Furth erm ore M il ler’ s u n c on d itio n al g u ilty p lea w aiv ed on ap p ea l an y c h alle n ge s t o th e in d ict m en t. See U nited St at e s v. Ki ngc ade, 562 F.3d 79 4, 79 7 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nite d States v. C am pbel l , 32 4 F
. 3d 497, 49 9 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). Fin ally bo th 18 U .S.C . § 11 5(a )(1) (B ) an d 18 U .S.C . § 84 4(e ) p ro h ibit m aki ng a threa t; i t i s i rr el evantwh etherthe defe nd ant intended to car ryo ut the thre at or eve n had the abi l i ty to do so
. U nited Sta tes v. Sa un ders , 166 F.3d 907, 911, 914 (7th Cir. 1999); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi e

f haus , 168 F.3d 39 2, 39 5, 39 6-9 7 (1 0t h C ir. 19 99 ). Counsel ’ s m oti on t o w i thdraw is GRAN T E D and the appeali s D I SM I SSED
.