United States v. McGlothlin, 072810 FED7, 10-1278

Docket Nº:10-1278
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD C. McGLOTHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Case Date:July 28, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RICHARD C. McGLOTHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-1278

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

July 28, 2010

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Submitted July 28, 2010

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 09-cr-10069-001 Joe Billy McDade, Judge.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Local police in Bloomington, Illinois, responded to a mother's call that her neighbor, Richard McGlothlin, had been taking photos of her son with a cell phone and masturbating as the boy played on a trampoline in the family's backyard. A search of McGlothlin's phone did not turn up any photos of his neighbor, but it did uncover troubling photos of partially nude children and what was later identified as the erect penis of a fifteen-year-old boy. After the district court denied his motion to suppress the photos, McGlothlin entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts of producing child pornography, and the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 180 months' imprisonment, the statutory minimum for each count. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). McGlothlin filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. McGlothlin has not opposed counsel's motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues identified in counsel's facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).

McGlothlin has told counsel that he does not want his guilty pleas vacated, so counsel properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the pleas. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel first considers whether McGlothlin could challenge the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the photos on his cell phone. Bloomington police officer Robert Raycraft testified at the suppression hearing that, after speaking to McGlothlin's neighbor, he approached McGlothlin, who was standing on the lawn in front of his home, and asked if he had been masturbating or taking photos of the boy next door. McGlothlin insisted that he had only been checking his phone messages and getting cigarettes out of his pocket, and when Raycraft asked him if he would find photos of the neighbor on his phone, he replied, "Not that neighbor." When Raycraft asked if he could check the phone for himself, McGlothlin said, "Sure." On the phone...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP