United States of America v. Jarrod Burton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 2, 2025
Decided September 3, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JARROD BURTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 21-20012-002
Colin S. Bruce,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jarrod Burton pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. He appeals, but his appointed
counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief details the nature of the case and
discusses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because
counsel’s analysis appears thorough, and Burton 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).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2052 Page 2
In 2020, Burton was arrested after he fled a traffic stop. Officers later found
methamphetamine in Burton’s vehicle, and he was charged with violating 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) for possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine. He later pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
Ahead of sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investigation
report (PSR). The officer began with a base offense level of 38, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1),
based on the methamphetamine found in Burton’s vehicle as well as methamphetamine
that officers later found in his codefendant’s apartment and methamphetamine that
Burton’s codefendant admitted to trafficking with him. The officer then added 2 levels
for maintaining a premises for the purpose of distributing drugs, id. § 2D1.1(b)(12), and
subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a)–(b), resulting in a
total offense level of 37. The officer calculated a criminal history category of III, yielding
a guidelines range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
At sentencing, Burton objected that any methamphetamine not found in his
vehicle should be excluded from the offense-level calculations. The government
responded by requesting that the court reduce Burton’s base offense level to 34 and
remove the 2-level increase for maintaining a premises. The court adopted the PSR with
those changes, which reduced Burton’s total offense level to 31 and his guidelines range
to 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. Burton therefore withdrew his objection. The court
then weighed the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sentenced Burton to
135 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
In his brief, counsel first states that he advised Burton about the risks and
benefits of challenging the guilty plea and determined that Burton does not seek to
withdraw the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel
therefore properly omits discussion of whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.
See United States v. Larry, 104 F.4th 1020, 1022 (7th Cir. 2024).
Counsel next considers but correctly rejects any procedural challenge to Burton’s
sentence. Counsel is correct that the sentence could not exceed the statutory maximum
of life. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). We likewise agree that the district court correctly
calculated a guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment based on a total
offense level of 31 and criminal history category of III.
Counsel is also correct that Burton could not challenge the substantive
reasonableness of his bottom-of-guidelines sentence. Such a sentence is presumptively
reasonable, and we would affirm if the court adequately explained its reasoning.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2052 Page 3
United States v. Major, 33 F.4th 370, 384–85 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, the court explained the
sentence with reference to several factors under § 3553(a): the seriousness of the
quantity of methamphetamine that Burton possessed; his history of drug addiction and
current sobriety; his prior offense relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine;
and the need to provide him with rehabilitation and vocational training while in prison.
Finally, counsel correctly rejects any challenge to the term or conditions of
Burton’s supervised release. The five-year term is required by law, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), and the district court’s rationale for Burton’s term of imprisonment
applies to his term of supervised release as well, see United States v. Bickart, 825 F.3d 832,
839 (7th Cir. 2016). Counsel also correctly concludes that Burton waived any appellate
challenge to the conditions of supervised release because he told the court that he did
not object to them. See United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 449 (7th Cir. 2019).
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --