United States of America v. Wesley Schmelzer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2026
Decided June 24, 2026
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 26-1224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WESLEY SCHMELZER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:24-CR-30157-SMY-1
Staci M. Yandle,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Wesley Schmelzer pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine while in
prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(1). He appeals his 33-month sentence, 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 explains the nature of
the case and raises potential issues that an appeal like this would be expected to
involve. Because counsel’s brief appears thorough, and Schmelzer did not respond to
the motion, see CIR . R. 51(b), we limit our review to 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 2 --

No. 26-1224 Page 2
In April 2024, while Schmelzer was incarcerated at FCI Greenville on drug-
trafficking charges, a correctional officer patted him down and discovered a clear plastic
bag containing 12 bindles of methamphetamine. Schmelzer pleaded guilty to one count
of possessing contraband in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) and was sentenced to 33
months’ imprisonment.
Counsel first confirms that Schmelzer does not wish to challenge his guilty plea
and properly refrains from discussing the validity of the plea. See United States v.
Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671
(7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel next rightly rejects any procedural challenge to Schmelzer’s sentence.
The court properly calculated his offense level of 13, see U.S.S.G. § 2P1.2(a)(2), decreased
by 2 levels because he accepted responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1(a). And the court correctly
assessed his criminal history category at VI, resulting in a guidelines range of 27 to 33
months. See id. § 5A. The 33-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum of
20 years, see 18 U.S.C. § 1791(b)(1), and runs consecutively to Schmelzer’s other drug-
related sentence, as required by § 1791(c).
We also agree with counsel that any challenge to the substantive reasonableness
of Schmelzer’s sentence would be frivolous. Schmelzer’s within-guideline sentence is
presumptively reasonable, and we will uphold a sentence if the court adequately
explains its reasoning. United States v. Major, 33 F.4th 370, 379 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, the
court explained the sentence with reference to the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing the
seriousness of the offense (drugs make prisons “exponentially more dangerous”) and
the value of general deterrence (“others in the prisons need to know the
consequences … of the possession of contraband”). The court also addressed
Schmelzer’s arguments in mitigation—he struggled with addiction and created a
program to educate fellow inmates about the First Step Act—before concluding that
Schmelzer could have addressed his addiction while incarcerated but chose not to.
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --