NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1 United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱAugustȱ27,ȱ2009 DecidedȱAugustȱ28,ȱ2009 AmendedȱSeptemberȱ9,ȱ2009 Before ȱȱȱȱ WILLIAMȱJ.ȱBAUER,ȱCircuitȱJudge ȱ RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge ȱ DIANEȱP.ȱWOOD,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ08Ȭ3947 UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffȬAppellee, CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱof Wisconsin. v. No.ȱ08ȬCRȬ93 GUADALUPEȱMACIASȬMARTINEZ, DefendantȬAppellant. CharlesȱN.ȱClevert,ȱJr.,ȱ Judge. OȱRȱDȱEȱR GuadalupeȱMaciasȬMartinezȱpleadedȱguiltyȱtoȱillegallyȱreenteringȱtheȱUnitedȱStates afterȱbeingȱdeportedȱfollowingȱhisȱprisonȱtermȱforȱdrugȱtrafficking.ȱȱSeeȱ8ȱU.S.C. §ȱ1326(b)(2).ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱappliedȱtheȱ16Ȭlevelȱincreaseȱforȱaggravatedȱfelonies, seeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ2L1.2,ȱinȱcalculatingȱaȱguidelinesȱimprisonmentȱrangeȱofȱ57ȱtoȱ71ȱmonths,ȱbut imposedȱaȱbelowȬguidelinesȱterm,ȱ52ȱmonths.ȱȱMaciasȬMartinezȱfiledȱaȱnoticeȱofȱappeal,ȱbut hisȱcounselȱisȱunableȱtoȱdiscernȱanyȱnonfrivolousȱclaimsȱtoȱpursueȱandȱseeksȱtoȱwithdraw.ȱ SeeȱAndersȱv.ȱCalifornia,ȱ386ȱU.S.ȱ738ȱ(1967).ȱȱWeȱaddressȱonlyȱtheȱpotentialȱissuesȱidentified inȱcounsel’sȱsupportingȱbriefȱandȱMaciasȬMartinez’sȱresponseȱunderȱCIR.ȱR.ȱ51(b).ȱ SeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱSchuh,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱ968,ȱ973Ȭ74ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002). No.ȱ08Ȭ3947 Pageȱ2 MaciasȬMartinezȱreenteredȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱaȱyearȱafterȱheȱwasȱdeported,ȱand withinȱsixȱmonthsȱheȱwasȱagainȱconvictedȱinȱWisconsinȱcourtȱofȱtraffickingȱcocaine.ȱȱHeȱwas sentencedȱtoȱ90ȱdaysȱinȱprisonȱand,ȱonȱtopȱofȱthat,ȱreimprisonedȱforȱapproximatelyȱ18 monthsȱforȱviolatingȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱsupervisedȱreleaseȱimposedȱasȱpartȱofȱhisȱoriginal traffickingȱsentence.ȱȱDuringȱthatȱtime,ȱheȱwasȱtakenȱintoȱfederalȱcustody,ȱwhereȱheȱpleaded guiltyȱtoȱtheȱimmigrationȱviolation.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱimposedȱaȱnewȱsentenceȱrunning concurrentlyȱwithȱtheȱreimprisonmentȱterm. MaciasȬMartinezȱdoesȱnotȱwishȱtoȱchallengeȱhisȱguiltyȱplea,ȱsoȱcounselȱappropriately refrainsȱfromȱdiscussingȱpossibleȱargumentsȱaboutȱtheȱvoluntarinessȱofȱtheȱpleaȱorȱthe adequacyȱofȱtheȱpleaȱcolloquy.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱKnox,ȱ287ȱF.3dȱ667,ȱ671ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002). Counselȱfirstȱconcludes,ȱandȱweȱagree,ȱthatȱanyȱchallengeȱtoȱtheȱreasonablenessȱof theȱsentenceȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolous.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱconsideredȱatȱlengthȱtheȱsentencing factorsȱsetȱforthȱinȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3553(a)(2)ȱandȱimposedȱaȱsentenceȱbelowȱtheȱguidelines range.ȱȱWeȱaccordȱaȱwithinȬguidelinesȱsentenceȱaȱpresumptionȱofȱreasonableness,ȱseeȱRita v.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ127ȱS.Ct.ȱ2456,ȱ2462Ȭ64ȱ(2007);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱShannon,ȱ518ȱF.3dȱ494,ȱ496 (7thȱCir.2008);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMykytiuk,ȱ415ȱF.3dȱ606,ȱ608ȱ(7thȱCir.2005),ȱandȱthe presumptionȱisȱstrengthenedȱwhenȱtheȱdefendantȱisȱcomplainingȱaboutȱaȱsentenceȱbelowȱthe guidelinesȱrangeȱapplicableȱtoȱhisȱoffense. CounselȱthenȱconsidersȱwhetherȱMaciasȬMartinezȱcouldȱargueȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt shouldȱhaveȱimposedȱaȱlesserȱprisonȱtermȱbasedȱonȱtheȱallegedlyȱsubstandardȱconditionsȱof hisȱpresentencingȱconfinementȱinȱWisconsinȱprisons.ȱȱAtȱsentencingȱMaciasȬMartinez assertedȱthatȱforȱtheȱpastȱnineȱmonthsȱheȱspentȱ19ȱhoursȱaȱdayȱlockedȱinȱhisȱcellȱwithȱlimited accessȱtoȱaȱtelevision,ȱandȱthat,ȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱhisȱtransfersȱbetweenȱstateȱandȱfederalȱcustody, heȱwasȱunableȱtoȱaccessȱallȱofȱtheȱfundsȱinȱhisȱinmateȱaccount.ȱȱAndȱbecauseȱheȱcouldȱnot useȱthoseȱfunds,ȱheȱcontinued,ȱheȱwentȱwithoutȱneededȱdentalȱcareȱandȱsundriesȱthatȱwould haveȱeasedȱhisȱtimeȱinȱjail.ȱȱBut,ȱasȱcounselȱnotes,ȱconditionsȱofȱpresentencingȱconfinement areȱnotȱamongȱtheȱfactorsȱthatȱjudgesȱmustȱconsiderȱinȱcraftingȱaȱsentence.ȱȱSeeȱ18ȱU.S.C. 3553(a)(2);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱTurner,ȱ569ȱF.3dȱ637,ȱ642ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱEvenȱthoughȱaȱlower sentenceȱmightȱbeȱjustifiedȱbyȱconditionsȱofȱpresentencingȱconfinementȱthatȱare extraordinarilyȱharsh,ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱCampos,ȱ541ȱF.3dȱ735,ȱ751ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008),ȱthereȱareȱtwo reasonsȱwhyȱitȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolousȱforȱMaciasȬMartinezȱtoȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱhadȱto addressȱtheȱcircumstancesȱofȱhisȱdetention.ȱȱFirst,ȱheȱpresentedȱnoȱdocumentationȱshowing thatȱconditionsȱwereȱasȱunpleasantȱasȱheȱalleged.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱȱSecond,ȱputtingȱasideȱthe evidentiaryȱissue,ȱtheȱconditionsȱMaciasȬMartinezȱdescribedȱwereȱnotȱunusuallyȱharshȱand thusȱdidȱnotȱmeritȱtheȱjudge’sȱattention.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱRamirezȬGutierrez,ȱ503ȱF.3dȱ643, No.ȱ08Ȭ3947 Pageȱ3 646ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2007)ȱ(poorȱventilation,ȱinadequateȱopportunitiesȱtoȱexercise,ȱandȱlackȱofȱdental careȱnotȱsoȱharshȱasȱtoȱwarrantȱspecialȱconsideration). Theȱfinalȱpotentialȱissueȱidentifiedȱbyȱcounselȱisȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱfailureȱtoȱconsider theȱabsenceȱofȱaȱ“fastȱtrack”ȱprogramȱforȱillegalȱreentryȱcasesȱinȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱof Wisconsin.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱconsistentlyȱheldȱthatȱaȱsentencingȱjudgeȱinȱaȱdistrictȱwithoutȱaȱ“fast track”ȱprogramȱmayȱnotȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱtheȱfactȱthatȱsimilarȱdefendantsȱinȱdistricts operatingȱsuchȱprogramsȱcouldȱreceiveȱlowerȱsentences.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱPachecoȬDiaz, 506ȱF.3dȱ545,ȱ552ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2007);ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱGaliciaȬCardenas,ȱ443ȱF.3dȱ553,ȱ555ȱ(7thȱCir. 2006).ȱȱThoseȱcasesȱall,ȱhowever,ȱpredateȱKimbroughȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱȱ128ȱS.ȱCt.ȱ558ȱ(2007), andȱotherȱcircuitsȱareȱsplitȱonȱwhetherȱthatȱdecisionȱrequiresȱthemȱtoȱreevaluateȱaȱdistrict court’sȱdiscretionȱtoȱconsiderȱfastȬtrackȱdisparities.ȱȱCompareȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱRodríguez,ȱ527 F.3dȱ221,ȱ229ȱ(1stȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ(overrulingȱpreviousȱcasesȱthatȱheldȱaȱdistrictȱcourtȱlacked discretion),ȱwithȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱGomezȬHerrera,ȱ523ȱF.3dȱ554,ȱ562ȱ(5thȱCir.ȱ2008),ȱUnited Statesȱv.ȱVegaȬCastillo,ȱ540ȱF.3dȱ1235,ȱ1238Ȭ39ȱ(11thȱCir.2008),ȱandȱUnitedȱStatesȱv. GonzalezȬZotelo,ȱ556ȱF.3dȱ736,ȱ740ȱ(9thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱEvenȱso,ȱbecauseȱMaciasȬMartinezȱnever askedȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱexerciseȱdiscretion,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolousȱtoȱargueȱonȱappealȱthatȱit abusedȱitsȱdiscretion.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱFilipiak,ȱ466ȱF.3dȱ582,ȱ584ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2006). MaciasȬMartinezȱcontendsȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱshouldȱhaveȱshortenedȱhisȱsentence basedȱonȱtheȱamountȱofȱtimeȱheȱhadȱalreadyȱservedȱonȱhisȱreimprisonment.ȱȱHeȱpointsȱto U.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ5G1.3(b)(1),ȱwhichȱrequiresȱaȱdistrictȱcourtȱtoȱreduceȱaȱsentenceȱtoȱreflectȱtime servedȱonȱanȱundischargedȱprisonȱtermȱthatȱwasȱimposedȱforȱanȱoffenseȱalreadyȱtakenȱinto accountȱbyȱtheȱguidelinesȱcalculation.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱBangsengthong,ȱ550ȱF.3dȱ681,ȱ682 (7thȱCir.ȱ2008);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱKnight,ȱ562ȱF.3dȱ1314,ȱ1329ȱ(11thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱByȱMaciasȬ Martinez’sȱreckoning,ȱproperȱapplicationȱofȱ§ȱ5G1.3(b)ȱwouldȱhaveȱshavedȱeightȱmonthsȱoff hisȱprisonȱterm.ȱȱYetȱapplicationȱnoteȱ2(B)ȱspecificallyȱexplainsȱthatȱ§ȱ5G1.3(b)ȱdoesȱnot applyȱinȱaȱcaseȱlikeȱthis,ȱwhereȱtheȱcurrentȱoffenseȱisȱillegalȱentryȱandȱtheȱpriorȱoffenseȱwas anȱaggravatedȱfelony.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMoralesȬCastillo,ȱ314ȱF.3dȱ561,ȱ563Ȭ64ȱ(11thȱCir. 2002). Lastly,ȱMaciasȬMartinezȱproposesȱarguingȱthatȱhisȱcounselȱperformedȱdeficientlyȱby failingȱtoȱaskȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱtoȱconsiderȱfastȬtrackȱdisparitiesȱandȱ§ȱ5G1.3(b).ȱȱButȱaȱclaim ofȱineffectiveȱassistanceȱofȱcounselȱisȱbetterȱleftȱtoȱcollateralȱappeal,ȱwhereȱaȱrecordȱdevoted toȱcounsel’sȱperformanceȱcanȱbeȱdeveloped,ȱandȱitȱwouldȱbeȱfrivolousȱtoȱargueȱthatȱthisȱis theȱexceptionalȱcaseȱwhereȱineffectivenessȱisȱapparentȱfromȱtheȱtrialȱrecord.ȱȱUnitedȱStates v.ȱRecendiz, 557ȱF.3dȱ511,ȱ531ȱ(7thȱCir.2009);ȱseeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHarris,ȱ394ȱF.3dȱ543,ȱ557Ȭ58 (7thȱCir.ȱ2005).ȱȱMaciasȬMartinezȱbelievesȱthatȱtheȱcurrentȱrecordȱshowsȱegregiousȱbehavior onȱcounsel’sȱpartȱsimplyȱbecauseȱheȱfailedȱtoȱraiseȱthoseȱissuesȱinȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt,ȱbutȱwe No.ȱ08Ȭ3947 Pageȱ4 wouldȱgiveȱ“everyȱindulgence”ȱtoȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱcounsel’sȱdecisionȱwasȱtactical, Recendiz,ȱ557ȱF.3dȱatȱ531. Accordingly,ȱweȱGRANTȱcounsel’sȱmotionȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱDISMISSȱtheȱappeal.