United States of America v. Ronald J. Wiggins

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 15, 2024
Decided April 16, 2024
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2600
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD J. WIGGINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:14-CR-30015-DWD
David W. Dugan,
Judge.
O R D E R
Ronald Wiggins appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his
supervised release, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and
moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We grant the
motion and dismiss the appeal.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2600 Page 2
A defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel in revocation
proceedings, see Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 787 (1973), but our practice is to apply
the safeguards of Anders in this context. See United States v. Brown, 823 F.3d 392, 394
(7th Cir. 2016). In his brief, counsel explains the nature of the case and addresses issues
that an appeal of this kind would typically involve. Because counsel’s analysis appears
thorough, and Wiggins did not respond to the 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).
Wiggins pleaded guilty in 2014 to various drug-distribution offenses and was
given four concurrent 151-month prison sentences followed by 3 years’ supervised
release. After completing his prison term, he violated the terms of his supervision, and
in 2022 he was sentenced to time served followed by 2 years’ supervised release.
Several months into his second term of supervised release, Wiggins again
violated its terms by, among other things, testing positive for methamphetamine,
amphetamine, and suboxone. At his revocation hearing, Wiggins admitted to the
violations. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 18
months’ imprisonment and no additional supervised release.
Counsel tells us that Wiggins wishes to challenge not the revocation of his
supervised release, but only the reasonableness of his sentence. Counsel therefore
appropriately declines to explore any challenge to the voluntariness of his admissions
or to the revocation decision. See United States v. Wheeler, 814 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir.
2016).
Counsel first considers whether Wiggins could challenge his revocation sentence
but correctly concludes that doing so would be frivolous. Wiggins admitted to multiple
instances of drug possession, some of which were Grade B violations, and the court
properly identified his criminal-history category as VI, yielding an advisory range of 21
to 27 months under the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statements. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
The court capped Wiggins’s effective range at 23 months and 15 days (based on the
two-year, statutory-maximum penalty, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), minus the 15 days he
served in prison during his first revocation of supervision).1 Nor could Wiggins argue
1 Wiggins should not have received credit for the 15 days he served in prison during his first revocation
of supervised release. Prior time served for supervised-release violations “does not limit the statutory
maximum that a court may impose for subsequent violations of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3).” United States v. Perry, 743 F.3d 238, 242 (7th Cir. 2014). The court’s miscalculation, however,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2600 Page 3
that the court failed to adequately consider his arguments in mitigation. The court
specifically acknowledged such arguments, including Wiggins’s serious drug addiction
and the hard work he was doing to provide for his family.
Counsel finally explores but rightly rejects a challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. We presume a term below the policy-statement range
like Wiggins’s to be reasonable, United States v. Yankey, 56 F.4th 554, 560 (7th Cir. 2023),
and counsel has not identified any ground to rebut that presumption, nor can we. The
district court adequately addressed the relevant sentencing factors by alluding to
Wiggins’s history and characteristics (especially his tendency to lie to counselors and
others who tried to help him) and the need for deterrence and effective correctional
treatment (which had not been achieved with the prior term of supervised release). 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (2)(D).
We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
did not harm Wiggins, so there would be no basis for counsel to have challenged the sentence on this
ground. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is no failure of advocacy to leave
well enough alone.”).

-- 3 of 3 --