United States of America v. Diondrea L. Holt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2023
Decided June 29, 2023
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DIONDREA L. HOLT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 13-CR-201-JPS
J. P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
The district court revoked Diondrea Holt’s supervised release after he admitted
to violating several conditions of supervision. He appeals his revocation sentence—
seven months’ imprisonment and two years of additional supervised release—but his
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-2237 Page 2
appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw.1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Although a defendant has no absolute
right to counsel in an appeal from a revocation of supervised release, see Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 789–90 (1973), we choose to apply the Anders framework in this
context, see United States v. Brown, 823 F.3d 392, 394 (7th Cir. 2016). Because the analysis
in the brief appears thorough, and Holt has not responded to counsel’s motion, see C IR .
R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v.
Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).
In April 2014, Holt was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and sentenced to 70 months in prison. He began supervised
release in April 2021. About seven months later, Holt’s probation officer filed a petition
to revoke Holt’s supervised release, alleging that he failed to report arrests, tested
positive for marijuana, did not attend his court-ordered counseling program, left the
judicial district without court permission, and tampered with his location-monitoring
device (a GPS bracelet). The petition also alleged that Holt had been charged with
multiple state crimes by prosecutors in Waukesha County (resisting an officer and
disorderly conduct) and Milwaukee County (domestic violence and theft). It classified
each alleged violation as Grade C. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3). The district court issued a
1 After serving the prison term for the revocation discussed in this appeal, Holt
began a new supervised-release term in July 2022. In November 2022, his probation
officer alleged that he again violated his conditions of release and requested a second
revocation. Those proceedings are currently paused by the district court, see Minute
Entry, Dkt. 83, United States v. Holt, No. 2:13-cr-00201-JPS-1 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2023),
pending the resolution of a state prosecution of Holt. See Complaint, Wisconsin v. Holt,
No. 2022CF005021 (Dec. 29, 2022), available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov/case.html. It is
unclear why because the government has agreed not to seek revocation based on the
violation addressing the same conduct that led to the ongoing state prosecution, in
exchange for Holt’s agreement not to contest the other three charged violations.
See Joint Statement, Dkt. 81, United States v. Holt, No. 2:13-cr-00201-JPS-1 (E.D. Wis.
Mar. 28, 2023). Another revocation appears inevitable. In response to our requests for
position statements on this issue, Holt’s counsel reported that Holt would not consent
to withdrawing this appeal. And, this appeal, while perhaps pointless, is not moot
because Holt’s first revocation sentence has not yet been overtaken by a new judgment,
and if this appeal succeeded the district court could still reduce the current term of
supervised release. See United States v. Sutton, 962 F.3d 979, 982 (7th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Corner, 967 F.3d 662, 667 (7th Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-2237 Page 3
warrant, and Holt was detained in the Waukesha County Jail pending resolution of the
revocation petition. Before the revocation hearing, the parties agreed that Holt should
be sentenced to seven months in prison with another twenty-four months of supervised
release. Holt agreed to admit to all the alleged violations, except those pertaining to
conduct for which he was criminally charged in state court.
At the revocation hearing, the court first confirmed that Holt had reviewed the
revocation report and discussed it with his attorney. The parties then presented
arguments supporting the agreed sentence. The government reviewed Holt’s violations,
highlighting his repeated cutting of his GPS bracelet as the “most egregious” violation.
It argued that because Holt violated the conditions of his release soon after leaving
custody, he demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. The government contended that
seven months’ imprisonment would be an adequate deterrent and provide an incentive
to follow the conditions of his supervision in the future. Meanwhile, Holt argued that
seven months was an appropriate sentence because he had been awaiting a revocation
hearing for six months already in the county jail, which he contended was “very
punitive time to serve.” He also pointed out that he was struggling with mental health
problems but that he had obtained a job offer that would begin upon his release. Holt
then apologized for his conduct and said he was “accepting full responsibility for my
actions and the decision I made.”
Based on Holt’s Grade C violations and criminal history category of V, the court
calculated an undisputed range of seven to thirteen months’ reimprisonment and one to
three years of additional supervised release under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.3(g); 7B1.4(a). The court recognized that supervised
release conditions can interfere with daily life and that remaining in the local jail while
awaiting a hearing was difficult and “unproductive.” But, it said, through his repeated
violations, Holt had demonstrated that he could not “conform [his] conduct to the
requirements of the law,” necessitating incarceration, and that more supervised release
would “ensure an appropriate level of reintegration with the community.” The court
further explained that Holt’s tampering of his GPS bracelet was particularly serious
misconduct, for which it would “ordinarily … impose an eight- or nine-month
sentence,” but it honored the parties’ joint recommendation and imposed a seven-
month sentence.
Counsel first considers whether it would be frivolous for Holt to try to withdraw
his admissions or otherwise assert that the revocation was invalid. In his motion to
withdraw, counsel does not tell us, as he should, whether Holt now wishes to assert

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-2237 Page 4
that his admissions were not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Wheeler,
814 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.
2002)). Nevertheless, we agree with counsel that any challenge to the revocation of
supervised release would be frivolous. Because Holt did not attempt to withdraw his
admissions in the district court, we would review for plain error. United States v. Nelson,
931 F.3d 588, 590–91 (7th Cir. 2019). The transcript of the hearing reflects that the court
complied with Rule 32.1(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Holt
confirmed that he received a written revocation report and reviewed it with his
attorney, he did not dispute the stipulated violations and the evidence, and he freely
accepted responsibility and admitted the conduct. See United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d
399, 403 (7th Cir. 2014). Based on Holt’s admissions, the court properly revoked his term
of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Perhaps because the parties agreed on the sentence, counsel does not discuss
potential procedural errors, but we note that a challenge to the calculation of the
sentencing range would be frivolous. As required, the court considered the guidelines’
policy statements to arrive at a range of seven to thirteen months. See U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.4(a); United States v. Childs, 39 F.4th 941, 945 (7th Cir. 2022). And it correctly stated
the statutorily authorized term of one to three years of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(h).
Finally, counsel correctly concludes that any challenge to the reasonableness of
Holt’s sentence would be frivolous. First, Holt expressly agreed to the sentence and
therefore waived any appellate challenges to its duration. See United States v. Golden,
843 F.3d 1162, 1167 (7th Cir. 2016). Regardless, because the sentence was within the
properly calculated range under the policy statements, we would presume that it is not
unreasonably long. See Jones, 774 F.3d at 404. It would be futile to try rebutting the
presumption because the court explained why it believed imprisonment was necessary
and accepted the parties’ recommendation of seven months’ imprisonment despite its
belief that a slightly longer prison sentence was warranted. The court also discussed the
§ 3553(a) factors, including the nature and severity of the violations (highlighting the
number of violations and the seriousness of the GPS-bracelet tampering), and the need
to deter Holt from future criminal activity and protect the public (explaining that it
intended for the sentence to prompt Holt to conform to the law and be integrated back
into his community).
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 4 of 4 --