USA v. Anthony Carriola, No. 12-2794 (7th Cir. 2012)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 December 20, 2012 Decided December 20, 2012 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Nos. 12 2794 & 12 2796 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. v. Nos. 12 CR 12 WMC 01 & 12 CR WMC 57 01 ANTHONY CARRIOLA, Defendant Appellant. William M. Conley, Chief Judge. ORDER Anthony Carriola was charged in the Western District of Wisconsin with obstructing commerce by robbing a pharmacy, see 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and brandishing a firearm during that crime, see id. § 924(c). He also was charged in the Southern District of Indiana with obstructing commerce by robbing another drugstore a month before the Wisconsin robbery. Carriola brandished a handgun during the Indiana holdup as well, and in both robberies he departed with morphine after physically assaulting a pharmacist. After consenting to the transfer of his Indiana case to Wisconsin, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 20(a), Carriola pleaded guilty to all three crimes. On the § 1951 counts the district court sentenced him below the guidelines imprisonment range to a total of 60 months. The court imposed a consecutive term of 84 months on the gun count, the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Nos. 12 2794 & 12 2796 Page 2 Carriola filed a notice of appeal from each prosecution, but his appointed lawyer asserts that the appeals are frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Carriola has not responded to his lawyer s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). He did tell counsel not to challenge his guilty pleas, and thus the lawyer properly omits from his Anders brief any discussion about the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of Carriolaʹs guilty pleas. 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 has not identified any basis to challenge the district court s application of the sentencing guidelines, which the court adopted from the presentence report without objection. Counsel does question whether Carriola could challenge his overall prison term as unreasonably high, but the total sentence is below the guidelines range and presumed reasonable. See United States v. Klug, 670 F.3d 797, 800 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Martinez, 650 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2011). Counsel has not identified any ground to rebut this presumption, nor can we. In determining Carriola s sentence, the district court evaluated the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Carriola s difficult childhood, his addiction to opiates, and the violent nature of the robberies. Thus a reasonableness challenge would be frivolous. We GRANT counsel s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeals.
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.
