NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 February 21, 2014
Decided February 24, 2014
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 13-‐‑2952 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Western District of Wiscon-‐‑
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellee, sin.
v.
No. 06-‐‑CR-‐‑032-‐‑WMC-‐‑01
JON HECKMAN, William M. Conley, Chief
Defendant-‐‑Appellant. Judge.
Order
While on supervised release for a bank-‐‑robbery conviction, Jon Heckman repeatedly
tested positive for marijuana. He also was convicted in state court of misdemeanor
theft. The district court revoked his release, ordered him to serve one day’s imprison-‐‑
ment, and added six months to his period of supervision. Three failed drug tests later,
the court revoked his release again, this time sending Heckman to prison for 11 months,
to be followed by another six months of supervision.
Heckman appealed. His newly appointed lawyer believes that the appeal is frivo-‐‑
lous and seeks leave to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We invit-‐‑
No. 13-‐‑2952 Page 2
ed Heckman to respond, see Circuit Rule 51(b), but he did not. We therefore limit our
review to the issues discussed in counsel’s submission, which in the absence of any rea-‐‑
son to think Heckman dissatisfied appears to cover the bases. See United States v. Schuh,
289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel first considers whether Heckman could argue that the court abused its dis-‐‑
cretion by revoking his supervised release. Like counsel, we conclude that such an ar-‐‑
gument would be frivolous. Heckman failed seven drug tests in less than a year (he
does not deny that tests detected drug metabolites), so revocation was mandatory. 18
U.S.C. §3583(g)(4).
The other potential question is whether a plausible challenge could be mounted to
the district court’s choice of sanction—which may be set aside only if “plainly unrea-‐‑
sonable.” See United States v. Kizeart, 505 F.3d 672, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2007). We agree with
counsel’s conclusion that any appellate argument would be frivolous. The statute au-‐‑
thorizes two years in prison, see §3583(e)(3) (maximum for persons convicted of Class C
felonies, of which bank robbery is one), and the district court explained that a return to
prison was necessary to hold Heckman accountable for his repeated violations, while
the extra six months following release would help ensure that he avoids drugs. See 18
U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(A), (B).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.