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