United States v. Ronnie Thomas

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 1, 2011
Decided June 1, 2011
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 10-2858
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
v. No. 09-CR-253
RONNIE THOMAS, C. N. Clevert, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant. Chief Judge.
ORDER
Ronnie Thomas was part of a drug ring that transported marijuana from Phoenix,
Arizona to Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana,
21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and because the amount was more than 100 kilograms he faced a
minimum prison term of five years, id. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). Thomas pleaded guilty and
agreed to cooperate; the government moved for the court to impose a sentence below the
statutory minimum based on his substantial assistance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The court
granted the motion and sentenced Thomas to 30 months’ imprisonment, the sentence both
parties recommended. Thomas filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer moves to
withdraw on the ground that the case is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738No. 10-2858 Page 2
(1967). Thomas has not responded to counsel’s submission, which is facially adequate.
See CIR. R. 51(b), United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel verified
that Thomas does not want his guilty plea set aside and thus appropriately omits possible
challenges to the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287
F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel reports that he searched the record but did not identify any possible
challenge to the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines. Counsel does
question whether Thomas could contend that his prison sentence is unreasonably long, but
we agree that it would be frivolous to make that argument. The term is below the guidelines
range and thus is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th
Cir. 2008); United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005). No circumstance
warrants disregarding that presumption here.
The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.