United States v. Jonus Wheeler, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3544

Jonus Wheeler pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); sentenced to 108 months imprisonment and 36 months supervised release.
Ten months into supervised release the government moved to revoke based on four positive marijuana tests, nine missed drug-treatment sessions, and two missed monthly reports; Wheeler admitted the violations.
The district court revoked supervision, sentenced Wheeler to 21 months’ reimprisonment and imposed a new 12‑month term of supervised release to follow.
Wheeler appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw, arguing no nonfrivolous issues, and Wheeler did not respond to the court’s invitation to comment.
The panel reviewed potential appellate issues raised by counsel: voluntariness of admissions (waived), calculation of the reimprisonment range/statutory maximum, lawfulness/reasonableness of the new supervised‑release term, and certain standard release conditions.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel at revocation	Wheeler (plaintiff) did not assert a need for counsel to contest revocation or raise complex mitigation	Gov't: no constitutional right where defendant admits violations and makes no complex mitigation claims	No right to counsel in these circumstances; Anders safeguards inapplicable (court may affirm if appeal not meritorious)
Reimprisonment-range calculation / statutory maximum	Wheeler could allege court miscalculated range or overlooked 24‑month statutory cap	Prosecutor and probation officer identified 24 months as statutory max; court referenced § 3583 when imposing 21 months	No meritorious claim; record shows court understood applicable 24‑month maximum
Lawfulness/plain unreasonableness of new supervised-release term	Wheeler might challenge new 12‑month term as unlawful or plainly unreasonable	Court relied on § 3553(a) factors, term below statutory and policy maxima, and imposed treatment condition for substance abuse	Term lawful and not plainly unreasonable
Vagueness of standard supervision conditions	Wheeler could challenge conditions (employment-change notice; leaving district without permission) as vague or lacking scienter	Court observed these criticisms but counsel didn’t raise them and Wheeler didn’t respond; modification available later under § 3583(e)(2)	Not addressed on appeal; available post‑imposition remedy exists

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel seeking withdrawal on appeal)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (right to counsel in revocation proceedings limited)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (Anders safeguards do not apply where no constitutional right to counsel)
United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2006) (appellate review standard when defendant admits violations)
United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error review of sentencing range objections at revocation)
United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001) (drug‑offense history affects grade of supervised‑release violation)
United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of supervised‑release terms)
United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (critique of vague employment‑change supervision condition)
United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (criticized district‑leaving condition for lacking scienter)