United States v. Byron Blake, 986 F.3d 756

Byron Blake was sentenced to 420 months for crack-cocaine offenses; the district court attributed at least 13 kg of crack to him.
Blake previously appealed and lost; he also lost a §2255 collateral challenge to his sentence.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) reduced penalties for crack offenses; §404 of the First Step Act (2018) makes those changes retroactive for qualifying prisoners.
Blake moved for a reduced sentence under §404; the district court denied relief on the merits, finding Blake undeserving because of his violent history.
Blake’s Federal Defender counsel filed an Anders-style brief and sought to withdraw; Blake objected and asked the court to compel counsel to continue representing him at public expense.
The Seventh Circuit held that prisoners have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for First Step Act §404 motions, granted counsel’s withdrawal (but denied dismissal under Anders), and set a new briefing schedule allowing Blake to proceed pro se or obtain new counsel.

Issue	Blake's Argument	Opposing Argument	Held
Right to appointed counsel for a First Step Act §404 resentencing motion	Blake argued he is entitled to appointed counsel at public expense	Government/counsel: no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for post-judgment resentencing motions	No right to appointed counsel; neither Constitution nor CJA mandates appointment for §404 motions
Whether counsel may withdraw over client objection	Blake urged court to compel lawyer to continue	Counsel sought to withdraw citing ethical duty not to pursue frivolous claims	Counsel may withdraw; a lawyer need not continue representation he reasonably deems frivolous
Applicability of Anders procedure	Blake implied Anders protections should control counsel’s withdrawal	Counsel and court: Anders applies to direct appeals, not to collateral/post-judgment proceedings	Anders is inapplicable here; Anders dismissal denied because Anders procedure does not bind this context
Procedural next steps when counsel withdraws	Blake sought immediate retention of counsel to avoid briefing gap	Court: permit Blake to proceed pro se or obtain new counsel; set briefing schedule	Granted withdrawal; denied Anders-style dismissal; set 45-day deadline for Blake’s opening brief and standard appellate briefing schedule

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (describes procedure when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw from a direct appeal as frivolous)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel to seek certiorari after direct appeal)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act timing and sentencing rules)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582(c)(2) resentencing procedure is not part of direct appellate review)
Lavin v. Rednour, 641 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2011) (no constitutional right to counsel on collateral §2255 proceedings)
United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for §3582 motions)
United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (Criminal Justice Act does not require appointment of counsel for §3582 motions)
United States v. Guerrero, 946 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2020) (district court discretion to recruit or appoint counsel for post-judgment relief)
United States v. SuBon, 962 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act §404 provides authority for sentence reductions)
United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789 (11th Cir. 2009) (CJA does not entitle defendant to appointed counsel for §3582 motions)
Blake v. United States, 723 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2013) (prior denial of Blake’s §2255 collateral challenge)