USA v. Christopher Carthans, No. 13-1155 (7th Cir. 2013)

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 June 20, 2013 Decided June 21, 2013 Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 13 1155 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, No. 3:12CR00084 001 v. CHRISTOPHER MARSHUN CARTHANS, Defendant Appellant. Barbara B. Crabb, Judge. O R D E R Christopher Carthans s problems began when he fled from the police after a traffic stop. Officers located him within minutes and found a handgun in a dumpster along the route he had taken. Carthans, who had a prior felony conviction for possession with intent to deliver crack cocaine, see WIS. STAT. § 961.41(1m)(cm)(1r), was charged by indictment with possession of a firearm by a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and pleaded guilty. The district court calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 46 to 57 months and sentenced Carthans to 60 months. Carthans filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer asserts that the possible appellate claims are frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. No. 13 1155 Page 2 California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited Carthans to comment on counsel s motion, but he has not responded. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issue identified in counselÊ¹s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Carthans has told counsel that he does not want to challenge his guilty plea, and so counsel properly forgoes discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670 72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel does consider whether Carthans could challenge his 60 month sentence, which is three months above the top end of his guidelines range, as unreasonable. But we will uphold an above range sentence so long as the district court properly calculated the range, reasonably applied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and adequately explained the penalty. See United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 911 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Abebe, 651 F.3d 653, 657 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545, 550 51 (7th Cir. 2011). Here the court emphasized the violent nature of Carthans s convictions (including multiple convictions for battery) and noted that he was not learning from his mistakes; instead, he used marijuana and repeatedly committed new offenses while on supervised release. The court thus reasonably concluded, based on the serious, violent, and repetitive nature of Carthans s past crimes, that an above range sentence was necessary to hold him accountable and protect the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C); United States v. Valle, 458 F.3d 652, 658 59 (7th Cir. 2006). CounselÊ¹s 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.