794 Fed.Appx. 546 (7th Cir. 2020), 19-2541, United States v. Bush

• Docket Nº: 19-2541
• Citation: 794 Fed.Appx. 546
• Party Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marlon P. BUSH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Attorney: Norman R. Smith, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Marlon P. Bush, Pro Se
• Judge Panel: Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
• Case Date: February 24, 2020
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 546

794 Fed.Appx. 546 (7th Cir. 2020)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Marlon P. BUSH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2541

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted February 24, 2020

Editorial Note:

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:18-CR-30077-SMY-1, Staci M. Yandle, Judge .

Norman R. Smith, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marlon P. Bush, Pro Se

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

ORDER

While serving as the director of the public library in East Saint Louis, Illinois, Marlon Bush stole over $48,000 of the library’s funds by making personal purchases on its credit cards and paying himself more than his approved salary. He pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). The district court assessed Bush a within-guideline sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release; the first six months of the latter would be on home detention. The court also ordered that Bush pay restitution of $48,102.86. Bush appealed, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bush did not respond to counsel’s brief, see CIR. R. 51(b), which explains the nature of the case and addresses the potential issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because counsel’s brief appears thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that he discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).

Counsel represents that he consulted with Bush and confirmed that Bush does not wish to withdraw his guilty plea, so he properly omits discussion of arguments related to the validity of his plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-71 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first considers whether Bush could attack the calculation of his guideline sentencing range but properly concludes that doing so would be frivolous. By the time of the sentencing hearing, Bush had withdrawn his objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, and at the hearing, he agreed with the district court’s calculations based on the report. See United States v. Fuentes, 858 F.3d 1119, 1121 (7th Cir. 2017). And, like counsel, we cannot discern any nonfrivolous challenge to the increase in his base...