Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedFebruary10,2010
DecidedFebruary11,2010
Before
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
JOHNDANIELTINDER,CircuitJudge
DAVIDF.HAMILTON,CircuitJudge
Nos.082277&082278
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
DOMINIQUEWATSONandTERANCE
TAYLOR,
DefendantsAppellants.
AppealsfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheEasternDistrictof
Wisconsin.
No.07CR286001
J.P.Stadtmueller,
Judge.
ORDER
TeranceTaylorwasarrestedlessthantwoweeksafterheenteredaMilwaukeebank
withapelletgunandleftwithmorethan$130,000instolencash.DominiqueWatson,who
plannedtheheistanddrovethegetawaycar,wasalsoarrested.WatsonandTaylorpleaded
guiltytoarmedbankrobbery,see18U.S.C.§2113(a),(d),andbothmenreceivedprison
sentenceswithintheirrespectiveGuidelinesrange,Watsonfor135months’imprisonment,
Taylorfor96months.Thecourtalsoorderedrestitution,tobepaidjointlyandseverallyby
TaylorandWatson,intheamountof$116,881.86.Weconsolidatedtheirappeals,andin
bothcasestheirappointedcounselmovedtowithdrawbecausetheybelieveanybasisfor
appealingwouldbefrivolous.SeeAndersv.California,386U.S.738(1967).Sinceboth
defendantsdeclinedtosubmitstatementsunderCircuitRule51(b)explainingwhythey
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No.082277&082278 Page2
believetheirappealshavemerit,welimitourreviewtoissuesidentifiedinthefacially
adequatebriefs.SeeUnitedStatesv.Schuh,289F.3d968,97374(7thCir.2002).
Neitherdefendanthasexpressedadesiretowithdrawhisguiltyplea,sotheir
lawyersproperlydeclinetoexploreachallengetothevoluntarinessofthepleasorthe
adequacyofthepleacolloquies.SeeUnitedStatesv.Knox,287F.3d667,671(7thCir.2002).
Weagreewithcounselthatanychallengetothereasonablenessofthedefendants’
sentenceswouldbefrivolous.WatsonandTaylorreceivedprisontermswithinproperly
calculatedGuidelinesranges,sowewouldpresumethattheirsentenceswerereasonable.
Ritav.UnitedStates,551U.S.338,347(2007).Bothlawyersassert,andweagree,thatthereis
noevidenceintherecordtorebutthosepresumptions.Moreover,thedistrictcourtgave
sufficientconsiderationtothe18U.S.C.§3553(a)sentencingfactorsandsupportedthe
ultimatesentenceswithadequatestatementsofreasons.Inbothcasesthecourtexplained
thatwithinrangesentenceswerenecessarytodetersimilarconductinthefuture,andto
reflecttheseriousnessofthecrime,whichinthiscaseendangeredthelifeofabankteller,
whowasheldhostageatgunpoint.
Finally,asbothattorneyspointout,itwouldbefrivoloustochallengethedistrict
court’srestitutionordersonthebasisthatthecourtfailedtosetascheduleofpaymentsto
bemadeduringthedefendants’incarceration.Congressrequiressentencingjudgestoset
paymentschedulesfordefendantswhocannotmeetrestitutionobligationsupfront.See18
U.S.C.§3664(f)(2).Preciselywhentheschedulebegins,however,islefttothecourt.See
UnitedStatesv.Sawyer,521F3d792,795(7thCir.2008).Herethecourtsetpayment
schedulesforbothdefendantstobeginupontheirrelease.Thiswasaproperexerciseofthe
court’sdiscretion.Id.
Accordingly,weGRANTthemotionstowithdrawandDISMISStheappeal.
Watson’smotiontoappointnewcounselisDENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --