United States v. Bernard Mosley , 500 F. App'x 539 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                            NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 February 14, 2013
    Decided February 14, 2013
    Before
    RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
    DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
    No. 12-3033
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                 Court for the Southern District of
    Illinois.
    v.
    No. 3:10-CR-30086-WDS-001
    BERNARD MOSLEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.                                William D. Stiehl,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Bernard Mosley tested positive for marijuana, violating the conditions of his
    supervised release, and the district court imposed 12 months’ reimprisonment. Mosley
    filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer now seeks to withdraw because he
    believes the appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Mosley
    opposes his attorney’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential
    issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief and Mosley’s response. See United
    States v. Aslan, 
    644 F.3d 526
    , 531 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Schuh, 
    289 F.3d 968
    , 973–74
    (7th Cir. 2002).
    No. 12-3033                                                                                Page 2
    Six months after Mosley served a year-long prison sentence for possessing cocaine,
    see 
    21 U.S.C. § 844
    (a), he tested positive for marijuana while on supervised release. He
    agreed to a modification of the terms of his release to include home detention, but after his
    eighth curfew violation the government petitioned the district court to revoke his
    supervised release. Mosley admitted to those violations and others: marijuana possession,
    twice driving with a suspended license, failure to report to his probation officer, and serial
    failures to undergo drug testing. The district court revoked Mosley’s supervised release
    and imposed the maximum 12 months permitted for his underlying offense, a class E
    felony because of his prior drug convictions. See 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3583
    (e)(3), 3559(a)(5); 
    21 U.S.C. § 844
    (a).
    Mosley’s attorney relays that his client wishes to challenge only his term of
    reimprisonment on appeal, and Mosley’s response does not suggest otherwise. Counsel
    was thus not obliged to explore the validity of the revocation itself. See United States v.
    Wheaton, 
    610 F.3d 389
    , 390 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Knox, 
    287 F.3d 667
    , 671 (7th Cir.
    2002).
    Counsel does explore whether Mosley could argue that the time he spent detained
    at home should be counted with his reimprisonment term against the statutory cap of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3). Some courts interpreted a prior version of § 3583(e)(3) to prohibit
    multiple impositions of reimprisonment, including home detention, beyond the limit set
    forth in that provision for the underlying offense (one year for Mosley as a class E felon).
    Compare, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 
    369 F.3d 847
    , 851 (5th Cir. 2004), with United States v.
    Hager, 
    288 F.3d 136
    , 137–38 (4th Cir. 2002). But the current version of the statute (which
    applies to Mosley’s 2010 offense) applies the cap separately, as counsel notes, and does not
    aggregate all terms of reimprisonment. United States v. Deutsch, 
    403 F.3d 915
    , 917 (7th Cir.
    2005); United States v. Hampton, 
    633 F.3d 334
    , 338 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Knight, 
    580 F.3d 933
    . 937–38 (9th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Thus, even assuming that home detention
    qualifies as “imprisonment” for purposes of § 3583(e)(3)—an uncertain proposition,
    see United States v. Elkins, 
    176 F.3d 1016
    , 1020 (7th Cir. 1999)—any previous split among the
    circuits has been resolved by statute, and it would be frivolous for Mosley to argue that his
    home detention should shorten his term of imprisonment.
    Counsel also considers whether Mosley could argue that his term of 12 months is
    plainly unreasonable. But the district court adequately considered the applicable guideline
    policy statements, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), and sentencing factors listed in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), in particular emphasizing the circumstances of his violations, noting that Mosley
    had proved incapable of fully cooperating with his probation officer. Reviewing this
    explanation, we would not find the term of reimprisonment plainly unreasonable.
    No. 12-3033                                                                                 Page 3
    See United States v. Berry, 
    583 F.3d 1032
    , 1034 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Kizeart, 
    505 F.3d 672
    , 674 (7th Cir. 2007).
    Mosley appears to propose arguing that he was punished twice for the same drug
    violation (once by the curfew, again by the reimprisonment), in violation of the Double
    Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But jeopardy does not attach to modifications or
    revocations of supervised release. United States v. Sines, 
    303 F.3d 793
    , 800–01 (7th Cir. 2002);
    United States v. Vargas, 
    564 F.3d 618
    , 624 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Dees, 
    467 F.3d 847
    ,
    853 (3d Cir. 2006).
    We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.