# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals F o r th e S e v e n th C i r c u i t Ch i c a g o, I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 4 Submi tte d May 23, 2014 Deci ded May 23, 2014 Before ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge No. 13-3083 UNITED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. SALVADOR F LORES -CAMPOS , Defen dant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Courtfor t he Nort hern Di stric t of Illinoi s, Eastern Di vis i on. No. 12CR604-1 John F. Grady, Judge

. O R D E R Salv ador F lore s-Cam pos, a ci tizen of Mexi co, pleaded gui lty t o unlawf ul presence in the Uni ted S tate s after re moval, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to 70 months’ i mpri sonment. He fi led a notic e of appeal, but hi s appointed att or ney asserts that t he appeal i s fri vo lous and s eeks to wi thdraw under Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Couns el has s ubm i tte d a bri ef that ex plains the nature of the case and addresses the i ssu es that an appeal of thi s kind mi ght be ex pected to involve . Becaus e the analysi s in the brief appears to be t horo ugh, we li mi t our rev i ew to t he subjects that couns el has di scu ssed, p lus the addi tional i ssu e that F lore s-Cam pos, di sagreeing wi th couns el, beli eves has meri t. See C I R . R. 51(b); United S tates v. Bey, ---F.3d ---, 2014 WL 1389090, at *2 (7th Cir. 2014); United S tat es v. Wagner , 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996). NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only in acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-3083 Page 2

Counsel begins b y not ing that F lore s-Cam pos does not wi sh to challenge hi s gui lty plea. Thus c ounsel appropriately omits di scu ssi on about the adequacy of t he plea colloquy and the vo luntarin ess of the plea. See Un ited States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Ci r. 2012); United S tates v. Kn ox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel then di scu sseswhether Flo res-Campos couldrais e a nonfrivolous challen ge t o hi s pri son sentence an d conclu des that he could not. The defendan t’s sentence i s at the bott om of the g ui delines range of 70 to 87 months resulting from his Categ or y V crim inal hi stor y and to tal offense level of 21 (a base offen se level of 8, seeU.S.S .G. § 2L1.2(a) , plus 16 levels becaus e hi s removal follo wed a convi cti on for a cri me of violenc e, see id. § 2L1.2(b) (1)( A)(i i ), less3 levels for acceptance of responsibi li ty, see id. § 3E1.1). Counsel i denti fi es no basi s to questi on the cor rectness of thi s range, and thus Flores-Campos’s wi thin-gui delines s entence i s presum ed to be r easonable. See R ita v. United S tates , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United S tat es v. Marin-Casta no , 688 F.3d 899, 905 (7th Ci r. 2012). Counsel has n ot identi fi ed any gr ound to r ebut thi s presum ption, nor have we. The di stric t courtconsi dered F lore s-Cam pos’s argument thatthe 16-level upward adjustment for hi s removal afte r a crime of vi olence ove rstat es the seri ousness of thisi mmi gr ation offens e, but rej ected that ar gument after t akin g in to account Flor es-Camp os’s cri minal hi stor y, hi s fam i ly ties to the United Stat es, the li kelih ood t hat he wi ll try againto e nter t he Uni ted S tate s after re moval, and the need for deter rence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a) (2)( A), (a)( 2)(B)

. In hi s Rule 51(b ) response Flor es-Camp os propo ses to contend on appeal that di stric t court s lac k subject-matter jurisdi cti on ov er crimes commi tte d on land that the federal go ver nment does not own. Thi s ass ert i on i s nonsen se. Federal criminal law appli es throug hout the nation. See Un ited States v. Ba nks-Giombet ti, 245 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Ci r. 2001). Illegal r eentr y isa federal crim e under § 1326(a), and d i stric t court s have jurisdi cti on ov er all federal pr osecuti ons. 18 U.S.C. § 3231; United S tat es v. Rogers , 270 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2001). The moti on to wi thdraw i s GRANTED , and the appeal i s DISMISSED

.