Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedDecember16,2010
DecidedJanuary5,2011
Before
JOHNL.COFFEY,CircuitJudge
JOELM.FLAUM,CircuitJudge
ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge
No.102021
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
ISAACNORFLEET,
DefendantAppellant.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,
EasternDivision.
No.05CR1172
BlancheM.Manning,
Judge.
ORDER
In2005IsaacNorfleetpleadedguiltytopossessionwithintenttodistribute500
gramsormoreofcocaineinviolationof21U.S.C.§841(a)(1),andwassentencedto60
months’imprisonmentfollowedby5years’supervisedrelease.ThreeyearslaterNorfleet
wasreleasedfromincarcerationandbegansupervisedrelease.AfterNorfleetviolatedthe
termsofhissupervisedreleaseasecondtime,thedistrictcourt,followinganoral
agreementbetweentheparties,revokedNorfleet’ssupervisedreleaseandsentencedhimto
11months’imprisonment. Norfleet’sappellatecounselhasfiledamotiontowithdraw
underAndersv.California,386U.S.738(1967),contendingthatanychallengetoNorfleet’s
convictionorthereasonablenessofhissentencewouldbefrivolous.Norfleethasnot
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No.102021 Page2
acceptedourinvitationtorespondtocounsel’smotion.SeeCIR. R.51(b).Welimitour
reviewtothepotentialissuesidentifiedincounsel’sfaciallyadequatebrief.SeeUnitedStates
v.Schuh,289F.3d968,97374(7thCir.2002).
Accordingtoaprobationofficer’s2008petitiontorevokeNorfleet’ssupervised
release,Norfleetviolatedthreeconditionsofhisprobation:(1)testingpositivefor
marijuana;(2)failingtoparticipateinmandateddrugtreatment;and(3)failingtoreportto
theprobationofficeandtosubmitwrittenreportsasdirected.Atahearingbeforethe
districtcourt,Norfleetadmittedthatheviolatedtheconditionsofhissupervisedrelease
andaccededtothecourt’sorderrequiringhimtoreporttotheSalvationArmyfor120
days,afterwhichhewouldcontinuetoservetheremainderofhisoriginal5yeartermof
supervisedrelease.
ButNorfleetreportedattheSalvationArmyforonlyfourdays,precipitatinga
secondrevocationhearingbeforethedistrictjudge.Atthehearing,thegovernment
informedthecourtthatithadreachedasentencingagreementwithNorfleetinwhichhe
wouldservean11monthtermofreimprisonmentontheconditionthathebeexcused
afterwardsfromsupervisedrelease.Norfleettoldthecourthepreferredthisarrangement
becauseitwouldallowhimtoserveouthissentenceinitsentirety,thusenablinghimto
relocatetothesouthandfindemploymenttheresooner.Thedistrictcourtimposedthe
agreeduponsentence.
Counselconsiderschallengingthedistrictcourt’sdecisiontorevokeNorfleet’s
supervisedreleaseongroundsthathisadmissionswerenotknowingandvoluntary.See
UnitedStatesv.LeBlanc,175F.3d511,515(7thCir.1999).ButbecauseNorfleetdoesnotwish
tochallengetheunderlyingrevocationonappeal,counselcorrectlyforgoesanysuch
discussion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Wheaton,610F.3d389,390(7thCir.2010).
CounselalsoconsiderswhetherNorfleetcouldchallengehis11monthprison
sentence,butproperlyconcludesthatsuchachallengewouldbefrivolous.First,Norfleet’s
11monthsentencewasbelowthe3yearmaximumofimprisonmentthatacourtmay
imposeforsupervisedreleaseviolationswhentheunderlyingconvictionisaClassBfelony
(aswasNorfleet’s,see18U.S.C.§§3559(a)(2);3583(e)(3)).Further,thecourtproperly
calculatedaguidelinesrangeof5to11months’imprisonmentbasedonNorfleet’sGradeC
violationsofhissupervisedreleaseandcriminalhistorycategoryofIII(asassessedinthe
initialpresentenceinvestigationreport).SeeU.S.S.G.§7B1.4(a).Finally,Norfleet’swithin
guidelinessentenceof11additionalmonthsforhisthreeGradeCviolationswasnotplainly
unreasonable.SeeUnitedStatesv.Berry,583F.3d1032,1034(7thCir.2009).
Counsel’smotiontowithdrawisGRANTEDandtheappealisDISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --