
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith A. STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-4584.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted June 21, 2006.
    Decided Sept. 27, 2006.
    John W. Vaudreuil, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard H. Parsons, Johanna M. Christiansen, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER

Attorneys Johanna M. Christiansen and Richard H. Parsons filed a Motion to Withdraw as defendant Keith A. Stevens’s appointed counsel on June 16, 2006. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), attorneys Christiansen and Parsons submitted a brief in support of their motion. Mr. Stevens filed a Response pursuant to 7th Circuit Rule 51(b). As discussed below more fully, the Anders brief is adequate and the 51(b) Response lacks merit. Therefore, we grant the Motion to Withdraw.

BACKGROUND

Keith Stevens pleaded guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. On December 16, 2004, he was sentenced to 151 months by Judge Crabb. On August 31, 2005, this Court reversed and remanded in light of Booker. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Judge Crabb resentenced him to 145 months on December 1, 2005. On December 31, 2005, he filed a potential successive appeal. On January 31, 2005, Mr. Stevens’s previous attorney filed a motion to withdraw and that motion was granted on February 17, 2006. A new attorney, Richard H. Parsons was appointed on February 17, 2006. Attorney Johanna Christian-sen was added on March 9, 2006. Stevens filed a pro se motion seeking a new attorney on May 30, 2006. That motion was denied on June 9, 2006. Attorneys Christiansen and Parsons filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief on June 16, 2006. Stevens filed a pro se 51(b) Response on July 17, 2006.

DISCUSSION

The Anders brief submitted by Attorneys Christiansen and Parsons argues that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. We agree. Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3742, a defendant may appeal a sentence if it was (1) imposed in violation of law, (2) imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, or (3) a departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines’ range and was unreasonable. Mr. Stevens’s sentence was not imposed as a violation of law since it did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years. Mr. Steven’s sentence was correctly calculated under the Guidelines. Moreover, upon resentencing, the district court imposed a sentence six months below the applicable guideline range. This sentence was reasonable.

Mr. Stevens raises a jurisdictional issue in his 51(b) Response. Namely, he argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment failed to show how the United States had territorial jurisdiction over Wisconsin. 51(b) Response at 2. Stevens waived this challenge to his conviction by failing to raise it in his earlier appeal to this Court. See United States v. Husband, 312 F.3d 247, 250-51 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Parker, 101 F.3d 527, 528 (7th Cir.1996). Moreover, the argument is frivolous.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.  