USA v. Amy Krueger, No. 08-2965 (7th Cir. 2009)

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 April 16, 2009 Decided April 17, 2009 Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 08 2965 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 06 CR 120 C AMY JO KRUEGER, Defendant Appellant. Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge. O R D E R Amy Jo Krueger pleaded guilty to misuse of a Social Security number. See 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(8). She served 18 months imprisonment and then began a 3 year term of supervised release. After she violated the terms of her release, the government petitioned to have her release revoked. At her revocation hearing, Krueger stipulated to four violations opening a checking account without her probation officer s permission, violating state and federal law by passing bad checks, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and failing to submit a truthful supervised release report at the end of each month. Based on these stipulations, the district court revoked her supervised release, ordering her reimprisoned for 11 months. Krueger appeals, but her appointed attorney has No. 08 2965 Page 2 moved to withdraw because she is unable to identify a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We invited Krueger to comment on counselÊ¹s motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), but she has not responded. Thus, we are left to review only the two potential issues identified in counselÊ¹s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel first considers whether Krueger could challenge the district court s decision to revoke her supervised release. A district court may revoke a term of supervised release if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated the terms of release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Flagg, 481 F.3d 946, 949 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Krueger stipulated to having violated several terms of her release violations that the district court classified as Grade C. Once the district court had found just one Grade C violation, it acted within its discretion to revoke supervised release. See § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2). Counsel also questions whether Krueger could challenge the reasonableness of her term of reimprisonment. We will uphold a term of reimprisonment so long as it is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427, 438 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court categorized Krueger s violations as Grade C which, combined with her criminal history category of IV, yielded an advisory guideline range of 6 to 12 months reimprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The court then imposed a sentence near the top of that range given the seriousness of Kruger s inability to go even a short time without passing bad checks and the need to protect the community from her future criminal acts. Because the court weighed the applicable policy statements, see U.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. B, and the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582, 588 89 (7th Cir. 2004), we agree that any challenge to Kruger s term of reimprisonment would be frivolous. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

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.