. In Michael victed distributing crack cocaine, 841(a)(1), served eight prison. In January fewer than weeks start arrested drunk *2 driving while outside judicial district without permis ‐ sion. His probation officer did seek at time, nearly two afterward Peterson took posi ‐ tive steps toward reestablishing his life: He started a busi ‐ ness, got married, began caring his new stepson.

But in November Peterson encountered a long term adversary at a bar. According Peterson two men en ‐ gaged in a verbal altercation (who started it what it was remains undetermined), but a surveillance video shows Peterson pursuing his adversary left bar armed with a pistol lent him by a friend “as a means of de fense.” (Why Peterson pursued him another undeter mined feature of case.) Out street other man attacked Peterson with a knife, seriously wounding him. Though his borrowed gun in his waistband, Peterson didn’t attempt use it but instead hid it under a garbage can fleeing police officers who observed attack.

Arrested later charged with being felon posses gun violation U.S.C. 922(g), pleaded sentenced months’ imprison ment, months imprisonment by judge. The revoked son’s he’d violated by having been armed, replaced it month term imprisonment consecutively month illegal possession. 3583(e)(3). filed notices appeal from conviction, his ap pointed advises us frivolous, therefore seeks representing cli *3 ent, citing Anders v. California U.S. (1967). We invited to respond to counsel’s motion, he has done so. Counsel represents that he consulted firmed that neither wants plea set aside nor wishes to contest the revocation supervised release. Left consider only whether nonfrivolous argument could be made against the procedural substantive reasonableness client’s prison terms, counsel concluded that any chal lenge the length those terms would be futile because judge had correctly guide lines policy statement range applicable U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(2), 7B1.4, had treated ranges advisory, had evaluated Pe terson’s arguments mitigation applied sentencing factors set forth 3553(a), finally im posed prison sentence below applicable policy statement ranges. See United States v. Jones F.3d 404–05 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Neal F.3d (7th Cir. 2008). Counsel further notes that challenging judge’s deci Peterson’s prison terms consecutively— considers be Peterson’s major complaint sentence—would conflict Sentencing Commission’s advice consecutive be imposed when is result prison sentence. U.S.S.G. 7B1.3(f) Application Note 4; Taylor F.3d 423–24 (7th Cir. 2010). Moreover, sentences imposed son were their guideline ranges. Counsel’s motion granted dismissed.