# U ni ted S tat es Cour t of App eals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d October 30, 2008 Deci ded October 30, 2008

Be for e WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circ uit Judge JOHN L. COFF EY, Circ uit Judge MICHAEL S . KANNE , Circ uit Judge No. 08-1619 UN IT ED STA TE S OF AME RIC A, Pl a int iff -A pp ell ee,
v. NOA H P . H EA SER

, Def end a nt -A pp ell a nt
. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Cou rt f or th e We s ternD i s tri c t of Wi scons in. 05-cr-125-b bc Barbara B. Cr abb, Chief Ju dge
.
O RD E R Noah Heaser stole fro m hi s employer, t he Mayo Clini c, a variety of items, inclu ding computer par ts, cameras, mi croscope lenses, an d dental hand pi eces, and sold them on eBay. He pleaded guilty in the Di stric t of M innesota to mai l fraud, see18 U.S.C. § 1341, and was sentenc ed to five months’ i mpri sonment and three ye ars’ supervis ed release, and was ordered t o pay $136,967 in resti tution. After Heaser was 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

- 1619 Page 2

r e l e a se d fr o m p r iso n, the d ist r ictco ur tin M inn e so t a t r a ns fe r r e d j ur isd ict io n o v e r his s up ervi s ed rel ea s e to th e W es ternD i s tri c t of Wi s c ons in. Short ly b ef ore th at s up ervi s i on was s et t o end, Heaser’s pro bati on offi cer petiti oned for r evo cati on. Heaser, who was r e p r e se nt e d by co un se l, wa iv e d his r ig ht t o a r e v o ca t io n h e a r ing a nd a d mit t e d tha tin mo s t m onths he fa i le d to m ake the mini mu m re s ti tu ti on p aym en t of $1 00 , a nd tha t after being tic ket ed for dr i ving offens es he fai led to t ell hi s probation offi cer about the en c ou nte r w i th p oli c e. Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt f ou nd tha t He as er h ad c om mi tted a G rad e C violati on, seeU.S.S .G. § 7B1.1(a) (3), and or dered himto ser ve an addi tional nine months’ i mpri sonment. The c ourtalso i mposed a new18-month term o f su perv i sed release. He as er fi le d anot i c e of ap pe al, b uthi s ne w ly a pp ointe d a pp el la te l aw yers s eekto w i thd rawun de r And ers v. Ca lif o rnia, 3 86 U.S. 73 8 ( 19 67 ), be c au s e th ey a re u nabl e to di scern a nonfri vo lous i ssu e to pursue. Couns el’s su pport ing brief i s adequate, and He as er h as notres pon de d to o ur invi tati on u nd er Ci rc ui t Ru le 51 (b ) t o c om me nt o n c ou ns el ’s s ub mi s s i on. We li mi t ou r revi ewto th e p oten ti ali s s ue s i de nti fi ed in c ou ns el ’s bri ef. SeeUnit edSt a te s v . Sch uh , 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Ci r. 2002). Cou ns elfi rs t eva lu ate w he the r He as er m i ghtc ont es t th e tra ns fe r of juri s di c ti on from Minnes ota t o Wis consin. The di stric t courtin Mi nnesota ty ped the following language on a standard for m: IT IS HEREBY O RDERED pu rsuant to 18 U .S.C. § 3605 t he jurisd i cti on of the na me d abo ve b e tra ns fe rred w i th the rec ords of thi s Cou rt to th e Un i ted State s D i s tri c t Cou rt f or th e W es ternD i s tri c t of Wi s c ons in u pontha t Cou rt’s orde r of ac c ep tan c e of

juri s di c ti on. Th i s Cou rt he reb y exp res s ly c ons en ts tha t th e p eri od of [si c] m ay be changed by the Di stric t Co urt t o whi ch thi s transfer i s made w i tho utfu rthe r inqui ry of thi s Cou rt. The di stric t courtin Wi scons in then approv ed the tr ansfer, but no o ne notic ed that t he w ord “ s up ervi s i on” i s mi s s ing fromthe s ec ond s en ten c e quo ted ab ove. Cou ns el consi der making an i ssu e about the mis sing word but conclude, as do we, that any arg ument would b e frivolous. We have never held that defects in the tr ansfer pr ocess are j uri sdi cti onal, seeUnit edSt a te s v . B a ss , 233 F.3d 536, 537 (7th Cir. 2000) ( explain ing tha t§ 3 6 0 5 “ me r e l y r e g ul a t e s v e nu e ” ), bu t, r e g a r d l e ss , the mis sin gwo r d is inconsequ ential . Not o nly i s the omi ssi on obvious fro m the context, but the second sentence i s unnecess ary ; the fi rst sentence accompl i shed the transfer of j uri sdi cti on, and by statute t he di stric t courtin Wi scons in was thus “authorized to exer ci se all powers” prev i ously held by the sentencing court. 18 U .S.C. § 3605.N o. 08

- 1619 Page 3

C o un se l ne x tco ns ide rwh e the r He a se r co ul d ch a l l e ng e the d e cis io n t o r e v o k e his supervis ed release. Heaser stipu lated to the pro bati on offi cer’s allegations and thus wai ved his right to a cont ested hearing. SeeF ED . R. C R IM . P. 32.1(b )(2) ; United S tat es v. LeB la nc, 1 75 F.3 d 5 11 , 5 17(7 th C i r. 1 99 9) . Asc ou ns elnot e, the rec ord offe rs no b as i s to co nc l ud e tha tHe a se r ’ s w a iv e r wa s in v o l un t a r y . Th e r e l e v a nt a l l e g a t io ns a r e d e t a ile d in the pro bati on offi cer’s wri tte n peti tion to re vo ke supervised release, as are the possi ble statuto ry penalti es and the li kely r ei mpri sonment range under t he rev ocation poli cy statements. SeeU
. S
. S
. G. § § 7B 1
. 3 , 7B 1
. 4
. I n p a r t icu l a r wit h r e sp e ctt o the un p a id res ti tu ti on, the prob ati on o ffi c er a verred tha t s he di s c us s ed the pa ym en t ob li gati on w i th He as er “ rep ea ted ly” an d th at, in re s pon s e, he c ha rac teri ze d th e s en ten c ing c ou rt’s restituti on or der as an intere st-free loan that he would delay paying for as long as possi ble. Heaser, who cl ai med to be self-em ployed, also admi tte d in court thathe was pa ying $ 1, 00 0 p er m onth for hi s c hi ld ren ’s pri vate -s c hoo l tu i ti on, an d th at h e p urcha s ed two v ehi cles for hi s “bu siness .” Counsel are right to conclu de that any ar gument about the re vo cati on deci si on would be fri vo lous. C o un se l a l so a ss e ss wh e the r He a se r co ul d co nt e stthe l e ng th o f h is reimp ris onment. We would uphold the term unless i t is plainly unreasonable. Unit ed States v. Neal , 512 F.3d 427, 438 (7th Cir. 2008). A di stric t courtshould gi ve consi derable w ei ghtto th e revo c ati on p oli c y s tate me nts, b utthe rec ord m us t reve altha t th e c ou rt c hos e a termof

rei mp ri s onm en t in a c c orda nc e w i th the fa c tors li s ted in 1 8 U. S.C
. § 3553(a). See Ne al, 512 F.3d at 438; Unit edSt a te s v . Ca rt er , 4 08 F.3 d 8 52 , 8 54 (7th C i r. 2005). Heaser’s rei mpri sonment range was three t o ni ne months, see U.S.S .G. § 7B1.4, an d th e d i s tri c t c ou rt c onc lu de d th at atermat th e top of tha t ran ge w as ne c es s ary to de ter H ea s er a nd hol d h i m a c c ou ntabl e, tw o f ac tors me nti one d in § 35 53 (a ). Th e c ou rt could have gone as hi gh as 24 months, see18 U.S. C. § 3 58 3( e) (3 ), an d w e a gree w i th couns el that any challenge to the re latively short per i od Heaser r ecei ved would be fri vo lous. Fin ally, counsel c onsi der challenging the speci al condi tions of supervis ed release. Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt orde red tha t, whi le on s up ervi s ed rel ea s e, He as er m us t ha ve pe rmi s s i on fromhi s prob ati on o ffi c er to e nga ge in fina nc i altran s ac ti onsof $5 00 or mo re, an d h e c annoten gage in s el f- em pl oym en t, or a c c ep t c ont rac t w ork, or t ake a job w i th a n i mm ed i ate rel ati ve. Th e c ou rt al s o di rec ted tha t he al lowhi s prob ati on o ffi c er to sear ch hi m, hi s resi dence, hi s car, or his offi ce on reasonable sus pi ci on that he possess es contraband or has violated a condi tion of su perv i sed release. The di stric t c ou rt di d n ot c om me nt e xten s i vel y onthe s e c ond i ti ons, e xc ep t to m en ti on tha t He as er cannot be trusted to work for him self after violating the condi tions of hi s release.N o. 08

- 1619 Page 4

Be c au s e H ea s er d i d n ot objec t to th e i mp os i ti on o f the s e c ond i ti ons, w e w ou ld revi ew for plainerr or whether they are r easonably relate d to t he ci rcums tances of hi s cas e. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Unit edSt a te s v . Si lvi o us , 512 F.3d 364, 370-71 (7th Ci r. 2008); Unit ed St a te s v . M cKis sic, 428 F.3d 719, 721-22 (7th Ci r. 2005). As couns el recog ni ze, the c ond i ti ons proh ibi ting H ea s er fromw orking for hi ms el f o r ani mm ed i ate rel ati ve a re rea s onabl e b ec au s e h e u s ed hi s “s el f e mp loym en t” to c onc ea l fromthe prob ati on o ffi c er pu rc ha s es w i th f

un ds tha t s hou ld ha ve gon e to h i s vi c ti msan d c ou ld ea s i ly u s e a bus iness under the name of hi s wi fe or a close fami ly member to do the same. As the Ei ghth Circui t put it in United S tat es v. Choate, 1 01 F.3 d 5 62 , 5 66 (8 th C i r. 1 99 6) , H ea s er “n eed s anem pl oym en t s i tu ati on in whi c h h e i s notle ftto h i s ow n d evi c es .” Moreove r, though counsel cons i der challenging the breadt h of the pro hibi tion from working on a c ont rac t b as i s , th e l aw yers c orrec tly c onc lu de tha t i t w ou ld be mo re ex pe di en t f or He as er to a s k th e d i s tri c t c ou rt to m odi fytha t c ond i ti on u nd er § 35 83 (e )( 2) tha n to atte mpt to show that t he condi tion vi olates Heaser’s subs tantial ri ghts and severely compromi sed the fai rness of the judi ci al proceedin g. SeeSilv io us , 512 F.3d at 371; Unit ed States v. Tejeda, 476 F.3d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 2007). And, finally, couns el corr ectly r eali ze tha t He as er’s fa i lu re to re port h i s pu rc ha s es to th e p rob ati on o ffi c er, an d h i s hi s tory of s el ling s tole n p rope rty, e as i ly ju s ti fythe c ou rt’s jud gm en t th at aprob ati on o ffi c er should b e allowed to sear ch Heas er if there i s reasonable su spi ci on that he v i olated a condi tion of hi s su perv i si on. SeeUnit edSt a te s v . Mo nt eiro , 2 70 F.3 d 4 65 , 4 67 , 4 69 (7th C i r. 2001) (u pholding speci al condi tion of su perv i sed release that allows any law enforcement offi cer to search defend ant at any t i me). We ther efore GRA NT the motion to wi thdraw and DISMI SS the appeal.