USA v. Marcus Welton, No. 10-2856 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 17, 2010* Decided November 19, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge T o b e c i t e d o n l y i n a c c Appeal from the United o r States District Court for the Western District of d a Wisconsin. n c No. 08-CR-39-BBC-01 e Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. w i t h No. 10-2856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCUS L. WELTON, Defendant-Appellant. Order F e Our most recent decision in this criminal prosecution remanded to the district d court for reconsideration in light of United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) . (en banc). R . On remand, the district judge reduced Welton s sentence from 188 to 151 months imprisonment, adjusting for the crack-powder ratio in the Sentencing A p p . * This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. P App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). . 3 2 . 1 N o No. 10-2856 Page 2 Guidelines. Welton has taken another appeal. His lawyer has filed an Anders brief, observing that the district court carried out this court s instructions and that the reduced sentence cannot plausibly be contested as unreasonably high. Welton was notified of counsel s position but has not used his opportunity, see Circuit Rule 51, to respond. Counsel s evaluation of the appeal is accurate. The only issue is how (if at all) to adjust the sentence in light of the discretion recognized by Corner. The district judge used that discretion, and an attack on the 151-month term would be frivolous. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
