Amended Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedAugust27,2009
DecidedAugust28,2009
AmendedSeptember9,2009
Before
WILLIAMJ.BAUER,CircuitJudge
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
DIANEP.WOOD,CircuitJudge
No.083947
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
GUADALUPEMACIASMARTINEZ,
DefendantAppellant.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheEasternDistrictof
Wisconsin.
No.08CR93
CharlesN.Clevert,Jr.,
Judge.
ORDER
GuadalupeMaciasMartinezpleadedguiltytoillegallyreenteringtheUnitedStates
afterbeingdeportedfollowinghisprisontermfordrugtrafficking.See8U.S.C.
§1326(b)(2).Thedistrictcourtappliedthe16levelincreaseforaggravatedfelonies,
seeU.S.S.G.§2L1.2,incalculatingaguidelinesimprisonmentrangeof57to71months,but
imposedabelowguidelinesterm,52months.MaciasMartinezfiledanoticeofappeal,but
hiscounselisunabletodiscernanynonfrivolousclaimstopursueandseekstowithdraw.
SeeAndersv.California,386U.S.738(1967).Weaddressonlythepotentialissuesidentified
incounsel’ssupportingbriefandMaciasMartinez’sresponseunderCIR.R.51(b).
SeeUnitedStatesv.Schuh,289F.3d968,97374(7thCir.2002).
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No.083947 Page2
MaciasMartinezreenteredtheUnitedStatesayearafterhewasdeported,and
withinsixmonthshewasagainconvictedinWisconsincourtoftraffickingcocaine.Hewas
sentencedto90daysinprisonand,ontopofthat,reimprisonedforapproximately18
monthsforviolatingthetermsofthesupervisedreleaseimposedaspartofhisoriginal
traffickingsentence.Duringthattime,hewastakenintofederalcustody,wherehepleaded
guiltytotheimmigrationviolation.Thedistrictcourtimposedanewsentencerunning
concurrentlywiththereimprisonmentterm.
MaciasMartinezdoesnotwishtochallengehisguiltyplea,socounselappropriately
refrainsfromdiscussingpossibleargumentsaboutthevoluntarinessofthepleaorthe
adequacyofthepleacolloquy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Knox,287F.3d667,671(7thCir.2002).
Counselfirstconcludes,andweagree,thatanychallengetothereasonablenessof
thesentencewouldbefrivolous.Thedistrictcourtconsideredatlengththesentencing
factorssetforthin18U.S.C.§3553(a)(2)andimposedasentencebelowtheguidelines
range.Weaccordawithinguidelinessentenceapresumptionofreasonableness,seeRita
v.UnitedStates,127S.Ct.2456,246264(2007);UnitedStatesv.Shannon,518F.3d494,496
(7thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Mykytiuk,415F.3d606,608(7thCir.2005),andthe
presumptionisstrengthenedwhenthedefendantiscomplainingaboutasentencebelowthe
guidelinesrangeapplicabletohisoffense.
CounselthenconsiderswhetherMaciasMartinezcouldarguethatthedistrictcourt
shouldhaveimposedalesserprisontermbasedontheallegedlysubstandardconditionsof
hispresentencingconfinementinWisconsinprisons.AtsentencingMaciasMartinez
assertedthatforthepastninemonthshespent19hoursadaylockedinhiscellwithlimited
accesstoatelevision,andthat,asaresultofhistransfersbetweenstateandfederalcustody,
hewasunabletoaccessallofthefundsinhisinmateaccount.Andbecausehecouldnot
usethosefunds,hecontinued,hewentwithoutneededdentalcareandsundriesthatwould
haveeasedhistimeinjail.But,ascounselnotes,conditionsofpresentencingconfinement
arenotamongthefactorsthatjudgesmustconsiderincraftingasentence.See18U.S.C.
3553(a)(2);UnitedStatesv.Turner,569F.3d637,642(7thCir.2009).Eventhoughalower
sentencemightbejustifiedbyconditionsofpresentencingconfinementthatare
extraordinarilyharsh,UnitedStatesv.Campos,541F.3d735,751(7thCir.2008),therearetwo
reasonswhyitwouldbefrivolousforMaciasMartineztoclaimthatthedistrictcourthadto
addressthecircumstancesofhisdetention.First,hepresentednodocumentationshowing
thatconditionswereasunpleasantashealleged.Seeid.Second,puttingasidethe
evidentiaryissue,theconditionsMaciasMartinezdescribedwerenotunusuallyharshand
thusdidnotmeritthejudge’sattention.SeeUnitedStatesv.RamirezGutierrez,503F.3d643,

-- 2 of 4 --

No.083947 Page3
646(7thCir.2007)(poorventilation,inadequateopportunitiestoexercise,andlackofdental
carenotsoharshastowarrantspecialconsideration).
Thefinalpotentialissueidentifiedbycounselisthedistrictcourt’sfailuretoconsider
theabsenceofa“fasttrack”programforillegalreentrycasesintheEasternDistrictof
Wisconsin.Wehaveconsistentlyheldthatasentencingjudgeinadistrictwithouta“fast
track”programmaynottakeintoaccountthefactthatsimilardefendantsindistricts
operatingsuchprogramscouldreceivelowersentences.SeeUnitedStatesv.PachecoDiaz,
506F.3d545,552(7thCir.2007);UnitedStatesv.GaliciaCardenas,443F.3d553,555(7thCir.
2006).Thosecasesall,however,predateKimbroughv.UnitedStates,128S.Ct.558(2007),
andothercircuitsaresplitonwhetherthatdecisionrequiresthemtoreevaluateadistrict
court’sdiscretiontoconsiderfasttrackdisparities.CompareUnitedStatesv.Rodríguez,527
F.3d221,229(1stCir.2008)(overrulingpreviouscasesthatheldadistrictcourtlacked
discretion),withUnitedStatesv.GomezHerrera,523F.3d554,562(5thCir.2008),United
Statesv.VegaCastillo,540F.3d1235,123839(11thCir.2008),andUnitedStatesv.
GonzalezZotelo,556F.3d736,740(9thCir.2009).Evenso,becauseMaciasMartineznever
askedthecourttoexercisediscretion,itwouldbefrivoloustoargueonappealthatit
abuseditsdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Filipiak,466F.3d582,584(7thCir.2006).
MaciasMartinezcontendsthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveshortenedhissentence
basedontheamountoftimehehadalreadyservedonhisreimprisonment.Hepointsto
U.S.S.G.§5G1.3(b)(1),whichrequiresadistrictcourttoreduceasentencetoreflecttime
servedonanundischargedprisontermthatwasimposedforanoffensealreadytakeninto
accountbytheguidelinescalculation.SeeUnitedStatesv.Bangsengthong,550F.3d681,682
(7thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Knight,562F.3d1314,1329(11thCir.2009).ByMacias
Martinez’sreckoning,properapplicationof§5G1.3(b)wouldhaveshavedeightmonthsoff
hisprisonterm.Yetapplicationnote2(B)specificallyexplainsthat§5G1.3(b)doesnot
applyinacaselikethis,wherethecurrentoffenseisillegalentryandtheprioroffensewas
anaggravatedfelony.SeeUnitedStatesv.MoralesCastillo,314F.3d561,56364(11thCir.
2002).
Lastly,MaciasMartinezproposesarguingthathiscounselperformeddeficientlyby
failingtoaskthedistrictcourttoconsiderfasttrackdisparitiesand§5G1.3(b).Butaclaim
ofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisbetterlefttocollateralappeal,wherearecorddevoted
tocounsel’sperformancecanbedeveloped,anditwouldbefrivoloustoarguethatthisis
theexceptionalcasewhereineffectivenessisapparentfromthetrialrecord.UnitedStates
v.Recendiz, 557F.3d511,531(7thCir.2009);seeUnitedStatesv.Harris,394F.3d543,55758
(7thCir.2005).MaciasMartinezbelievesthatthecurrentrecordshowsegregiousbehavior
oncounsel’spartsimplybecausehefailedtoraisethoseissuesinthedistrictcourt,butwe

-- 3 of 4 --

No.083947 Page4
wouldgive“everyindulgence”tothepossibilitythatcounsel’sdecisionwastactical,
Recendiz,557F.3dat531.
Accordingly,weGRANTcounsel’smotiontowithdrawandDISMISStheappeal.

-- 4 of 4 --