submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses the issues that an
appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief
appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel has discussed.
See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d
551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).
Counsel first considers whether Wagner might challenge the revocation of his
supervised release. But Wagner has not said or suggested that he wants the revocation
set aside, so counsel need not have explored possible challenges to it. See United States v.
Wheaton, 610 F.3d 389, 390 (7th Cir. 2010).
Counsel next considers whether Wagner could challenge the length of his
reimprisonment (time served, or approximately six weeks’ imprisonment, dating from
Wagner’s initial appearance in September 2013 to his resentencing hearing in late
October 2013). We agree with counsel that any such challenge would be frivolous
because the district court applied the proper methodology in setting the sentence.
See United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427, 438–39 (7th Cir. 2008). The court assessed a
guidelines range of 8 to 14 months based on a criminal history category of III and a
“Grade B” supervised‐release violation for making false statements. 18 U.S.C. § 1001;
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). In imposing a below‐guidelines sentence of time served (as
Wagner requested), the court emphasized the nature and circumstances of his
violations, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and the need to deter him from future ones, id.
Counsel finally considers whether Wagner may raise the issue of ineffective
assistance but properly concludes that such a challenge is best left for collateral review
through which a record can be developed, see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500,
504–05 (2003); United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543, 557–58 (7th Cir. 2005), especially
since she also represented him at his revocation hearing, see United States v. Rezin, 322
F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2003).
Thus, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.