NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

SubmittedȱFebruaryȱ10,ȱ2010 DecidedȱFebruaryȱ11,ȱ2010

Before

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱRICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱJOHNȱDANIELȱTINDER,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱDAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudge

Nos.ȱ08Ȭ2277ȱ&ȱ08Ȭ2278

UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, AppealsȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict PlaintiffȬAppellee, CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱof Wisconsin. v. No.ȱ07ȬCRȬ286Ȭ001 DOMINIQUEȱWATSONȱandȱTERANCE TAYLOR, J.ȱP.ȱStadtmueller,ȱ DefendantsȬAppellants. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR TeranceȱTaylorȱwasȱarrestedȱlessȱthanȱtwoȱweeksȱafterȱheȱenteredȱaȱMilwaukeeȱbank withȱaȱpelletȱgunȱandȱleftȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱ$130,000ȱinȱstolenȱcash.ȱȱDominiqueȱWatson,ȱwho plannedȱtheȱheistȱandȱdroveȱtheȱgetawayȱcar,ȱwasȱalsoȱarrested.ȱȱWatsonȱandȱTaylorȱpleaded guiltyȱtoȱarmedȱbankȱrobbery,ȱseeȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2113(a),ȱ(d),ȱandȱbothȱmenȱreceivedȱprison sentencesȱwithinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱGuidelinesȱrange,ȱWatsonȱforȱ135ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment, Taylorȱforȱ96ȱmonths.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱalsoȱorderedȱrestitution,ȱtoȱbeȱpaidȱjointlyȱandȱseverallyȱby TaylorȱandȱWatson,ȱinȱtheȱamountȱofȱ$116,881.86.ȱȱWeȱconsolidatedȱtheirȱappeals,ȱandȱin bothȱcasesȱtheirȱappointedȱcounselȱmovedȱtoȱwithdrawȱbecauseȱtheyȱbelieveȱanyȱbasisȱfor appealingȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolous.ȱȱSeeȱAndersȱv.ȱCalifornia,ȱ386ȱU.S.ȱ738ȱ(1967).ȱȱSinceȱboth defendantsȱdeclinedȱtoȱsubmitȱstatementsȱunderȱCircuitȱRuleȱ51(b)ȱexplainingȱwhyȱthey No.ȱ08Ȭ2277ȱ&ȱ08Ȭ2278 Pageȱ2

believeȱtheirȱappealsȱhaveȱmerit,ȱweȱlimitȱourȱreviewȱtoȱissuesȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱfacially adequateȱbriefs.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱSchuh,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱ968,ȱ973Ȭ74ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).

Neitherȱdefendantȱhasȱexpressedȱaȱdesireȱtoȱwithdrawȱhisȱguiltyȱplea,ȱsoȱtheir lawyersȱproperlyȱdeclineȱtoȱexploreȱaȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱvoluntarinessȱofȱtheȱpleasȱorȱthe adequacyȱofȱtheȱpleaȱcolloquies.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱKnox,ȱ287ȱF.3dȱ667,ȱ671ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).

Weȱagreeȱwithȱcounselȱthatȱanyȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱreasonablenessȱofȱtheȱdefendants’ sentencesȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolous.ȱȱWatsonȱandȱTaylorȱreceivedȱprisonȱtermsȱwithinȱproperly calculatedȱGuidelinesȱranges,ȱsoȱweȱwouldȱpresumeȱthatȱtheirȱsentencesȱwereȱreasonable.ȱ Ritaȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ551ȱU.S.ȱ338,ȱ347ȱ(2007).ȱȱBothȱlawyersȱassert,ȱandȱweȱagree,ȱthatȱthereȱis noȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱrecordȱtoȱrebutȱthoseȱpresumptions.ȱȱMoreover,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱgave sufficientȱconsiderationȱtoȱtheȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3553(a)ȱsentencingȱfactorsȱandȱsupportedȱthe ultimateȱsentencesȱwithȱadequateȱstatementsȱofȱreasons.ȱȱInȱbothȱcasesȱtheȱcourtȱexplained thatȱwithinȬrangeȱsentencesȱwereȱnecessaryȱtoȱdeterȱsimilarȱconductȱinȱtheȱfuture,ȱandȱto reflectȱtheȱseriousnessȱofȱtheȱcrime,ȱwhichȱinȱthisȱcaseȱendangeredȱtheȱlifeȱofȱaȱbankȱteller, whoȱwasȱheldȱhostageȱatȱgunpoint.

Finally,ȱasȱbothȱattorneysȱpointȱout,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolousȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱdistrict court’sȱrestitutionȱordersȱonȱtheȱbasisȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱfailedȱtoȱsetȱaȱscheduleȱofȱpaymentsȱto beȱmadeȱduringȱtheȱdefendants’ȱincarceration.ȱȱCongressȱrequiresȱsentencingȱjudgesȱtoȱset paymentȱschedulesȱforȱdefendantsȱwhoȱcannotȱmeetȱrestitutionȱobligationsȱupȱfront.ȱȱSeeȱ18 U.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3664(f)(2).ȱȱPreciselyȱwhenȱtheȱscheduleȱbegins,ȱhowever,ȱisȱleftȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱȱSee UnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱSawyer,ȱ521ȱF3dȱ792,ȱ795ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).ȱȱHereȱtheȱcourtȱsetȱpayment schedulesȱforȱbothȱdefendantsȱtoȱbeginȱuponȱtheirȱrelease.ȱȱThisȱwasȱaȱproperȱexerciseȱofȱthe court’sȱdiscretion.ȱȱId.ȱȱ

Accordingly,ȱweȱGRANTȱtheȱmotionsȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱDISMISSȱtheȱappeal.ȱ Watson’sȱmotionȱtoȱappointȱnewȱcounselȱisȱDENIED.ȱȱȱ