United States of America v. Charles A. Carroll

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 14, 2026
Decided July 14, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-3095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES A. CARROLL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:19-CR-30020-SMY-1
Staci M. Yandle,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Charles Carroll 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). A defendant who
appeals a revocation order does not have an unqualified constitutional right to counsel,
see Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 788–90 (1973), so the Anders safeguards need not
govern our review. Even so, our practice is to apply them. See United States v. Durham,
922 F.3d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2019). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-3095 Page 2
addresses the issues that an appeal of this kind would be expected to involve. Because
counsel’s analysis appears thorough, and Carroll 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).
Carroll pleaded guilty to firearm and counterfeiting offenses in 2019,
see 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 472, and he was sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment and 3
years’ supervised release. Carroll violated the conditions of supervised release in 2023
and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and 24 months’ supervised release.
Carroll violated the conditions of his second term of supervised release in 2025.
He did not report changes in residence and employment to his probation officer, attend
treatment programs, make required payments, maintain employment, or comply with
home confinement. He also possessed and used drugs.
At the revocation hearing, Carroll admitted to the violations. Both the
government and Carroll’s attorney requested 12 months’ imprisonment with no
supervised release to follow. The district court revoked Carroll’s supervision and
sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment with no further term of supervised release.
The court reasoned that this sentence was necessary to deter Carroll and to protect the
public from criminal conduct.
In her Anders brief, counsel tells us that Carroll wishes to challenge only the
reasonableness of his sentence and not the revocation of his supervised release. 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 considers possible procedural challenges to the sentence and rightly
concludes that any such challenge would be frivolous. The district court complied with
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 by informing Carroll of his rights and allowing
him to appear and make a statement. The court then correctly determined that Carroll’s
violations were Grade B violations under the policy statement of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). Combined with Carroll’s criminal history
category of III from the underlying offense, the court properly calculated a guidelines
range of 8 to 14 months. See id. § 7B1.4(a).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-3095 Page 3
Counsel next discusses a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of Carroll’s
prison term of 18 months and correctly concludes that any challenge would be
frivolous. Carroll’s sentence exceeds the guidelines range by four months, but counsel
acknowledges that no argument would overcome the “highly deferential” standard
under which we review a revocation sentence. United States v. Childs, 39 F.4th 941, 944–
45 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, the district court correctly identified the relevant sentencing
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and discussed Carroll’s criminal history (“your criminal
history, history of addiction, use of dangerous drugs [] poses a significant threat to the
public of future crimes”) and his need for deterrence (“I sentenced you to 12 months the
first time. It didn’t deter you.”). And Carroll’s 18-month sentence does not exceed the
statutory maximum of two years for his original offense, a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 472, 3583(e)(3).
Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --