United States v. Michael Peterson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2592
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Peterson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) after a 2015 bar altercation in which he pursued an assailant, was wounded with a knife, and hid a borrowed handgun; he had a prior 2006 conviction for distributing crack and had been on supervised release when arrested.
- District court sentenced Peterson to 48 months’ imprisonment for the § 922(g) conviction (9 months below the guidelines range) and revoked his supervised release, imposing a consecutive 6‑month term for the violation.
- Peterson’s appointed counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw, concluding any appeal challenging procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentences would be frivolous.
- Counsel noted the district court correctly calculated guideline and policy‑statement ranges, treated them as advisory, considered § 3553(a) factors, and imposed below‑range sentences.
- Counsel also observed Sentencing Commission guidance and precedent supporting consecutive terms when revocation follows a new prison sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders and the appeals be dismissed | Peterson does not seek to withdraw plea or contest revocation but objects to sentence sequencing; otherwise no nonfrivolous grounds | Counsel: no nonfrivolous challenge to procedural or substantive reasonableness; withdrawal appropriate | Allowed: Counsel permitted to withdraw; appeals dismissed under Anders |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentencing calculations | Implied challenge that guidelines/policy ranges or sentencing procedure were incorrect | Court: district judge correctly calculated guideline and policy‑statement ranges and treated them as advisory; considered mitigation and § 3553(a) | Held: No nonfrivolous procedural error identified |
| Substantive reasonableness of prison terms | Main complaint: sentences should not run consecutively; overall length excessive | Court: both sentences were below their applicable ranges and judge reasonably applied § 3553(a) factors | Held: Sentences substantively reasonable; no nonfrivolous basis to disturb them |
| Appropriateness of consecutive sentencing after supervised‑release violation | Peterson contended consecutive terms were unfair | Government/counsel: Sentencing policy and precedent support consecutive terms when revocation follows a new sentence | Held: Consecutive imposition permissible and supported by guideline policy and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2014) (district court must calculate ranges, treat them as advisory, and consider § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2008) (review of reasonableness and application of sentencing procedures)
- United States v. Taylor, 628 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2010) (guidance supporting consecutive terms when supervised‑release revocation results from a new sentence)