NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 March 13, 2012*
Decided March 13, 2012
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 11‐2550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin
v.
No. 3:08‐cr‐00159
BRUCE SONNENBERG,
Defendant‐Appellant. James T. Moody,
Judge.
O R D E R
This appeal is successive to our decision in United States v. Sonnenberg, 628 F.3d 361 (7th
*
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral
argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed.
R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
No. 11‐2550 Page 2
Cir. 2010), which remanded Bruce Sonnenberg’s case for resentencing on the crack cocaine
charges without the career offender enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. On
remand, the district court complied with our mandate and decided to reduce Sonnenberg’s
sentence from 292 months to 262 months. Sonnenberg has appealed the new sentence, but his
appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief asserting that she sees no non‐frivolous argument
for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sonnenberg had an opportunity to
respond under Circuit Rule 51, but he has not responded.
The Anders brief submitted by counsel shows careful attention to the record and to
possible arguments that might be raised on appeal. The brief correctly concludes that
Sonnenberg may not revisit issues that we decided against him in the first appeal, so the focus
must be on the resentencing decision. The brief and record show that the district judge made
no procedural errors. He considered the revised guideline calculation, recognized his
discretion and responsibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), addressed arguments in mitigation, and
imposed a sentence at the bottom of the revised guideline range, so that we would presume
that the new sentence is reasonable. We agree that no non‐frivolous argument could be made
to challenge the new sentence. We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders, and
the appeal is DISMISSED. Attorney Bensky has the thanks of the court for her service to her
client and the court.