USA v. Jerome Wright, No. 10-3234 (7th Cir. 2011)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 19, 2011 Decided December 20, 2011 Before KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 10 3234 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JEROME ALEXANDER WRIGHT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 09 CR 287 C. N. Clevert, Jr., Chief Judge. O R D E R Jerome Wright pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of two firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 32 months of imprisonment. Wright filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), because he cannot identify a nonfrivolous issue to pursue. Wright has not responded to his attorney s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issue identified in counsel s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Wright has informed his attorney that he does not want his guilty plea set aside. Page 2 Thus, counsel appropriately omitted from his brief any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the guilty plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel considers whether Wright could argue that his 32 month sentence is unreasonable. But the district court properly calculated the guidelines range of 30 to 37 months, and Wright s within guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Pillado, 656 F.3d 754, 772 (7th Cir. 2011). Counsel cannot identify a reason to disturb that presumption. The court, acknowledging Wright s personal circumstances, commended him for returning to school and taking care of his children. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). But the court explained that Wright, as a convicted felon, needed a punishment that would reflect the danger of possessing firearms, particularly in a home with children. See id. § 3553(a)(2). Thus, we agree with counsel that it would be frivolous to challenge Wright s sentence. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
