NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 November 1, 2011
Decided November 3, 2011
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 11‐1765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 10 CR 732‐1
CIPRIANO MUNOZ‐PELAYO,
Defendant‐Appellant. Amy J. St. Eve,
Judge.
O R D E R
After three prior illegal reentries and two prior removals, Cipriano Munoz‐Pelayo
illegally reentered the United States again some time after he was removed in 2007. He
came to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after being arrested
for drug possession in 2010. He later pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment, 9 months below the
bottom of the guidelines range.
Munoz‐Pelayo filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has concluded that
the appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Munoz‐Pelayo has not filed a response opposing counsel’s motion. See CIR. R.
No. 11‐1765 Page 2
51(b). We limit our review to the potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate
brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973–74 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel represents that Munoz‐Pelayo does not want his guilty plea vacated and so
appropriately omits discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the
plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002).
Munoz‐Pelayo’s counsel does consider whether Munoz‐Pelayo could challenge his
sentence, but properly concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. As counsel
notes, we presume that a below‐guidelines sentence is reasonable, see Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 347‐56 (2007); United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d 239, 255 (7th Cir. 2011), and
counsel cannot identify any reason to disregard that presumption. The court also
appropriately applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, discussing Munoz‐Pelayo’s criminal
history and the seriousness of his repeated attempts to live illegally in the United States.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
United States v. Cipriano Munoz-Pelay
Combined Opinion