United States v. Anfield, Christopher , 182 F. App'x 550 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted May 26, 2006
    Decided May 26, 2006
    Before
    Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
    No. 05-4227
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                       Court for the Northern District of
    Indiana, Hammond Division
    v.
    No. 2:05 cr 53-01
    CHRISTOPHER ANFIELD,
    Defendant-Appellant.                     Rudy Lozano,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Newly appointed counsel for Christopher Anfield asks permission under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), to withdraw from representing him in his
    appeal from a conviction and 168-month below-guidelines prison sentence for
    possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, see 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1).
    Although we invited Anfield to respond to his lawyer’s brief, see Cir. R. 51(b), he has
    not done so. Therefore, we confine our inquiry to the issues identified by counsel’s
    brief.
    Anfield threw a bag containing nearly 30 grams of crack out of a car window
    after police signaled him to pull over for speeding. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a
    No. 05-4227                                                                   Page 2
    written agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction or
    sentence. Owing to that appeal waiver, counsel maintains that the appeal is
    frivolous. We agree. Appeal waivers like Anfield’s are enforceable so long as they
    are made voluntarily and result in a sentence that is neither above the statutory
    maximum nor based on any constitutionally impermissible factors. See United
    States v. Lockwood, 
    416 F.3d 604
    , 608 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bownes, 
    405 F.3d 634
    , 637 (7th Cir. 2005). None of those caveats concerns us here.
    Indeed, although counsel informs us that Anfield wishes to challenge his plea
    and the appeal waiver as involuntary, nothing in the record supports such an
    argument. Instead, the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 of the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and, among other things, explained the effects
    of the appeal waiver. For his part, Anfield at sentencing momentarily claimed that
    his plea was involuntary but quickly changed his mind and reaffirmed the plea.
    Thus, even if he did not waive his involuntariness argument altogether, he failed to
    preserve it for review and must show plain error, see United States v. Dominguez
    Benitez, 
    542 U.S. 74
    , 76 (2004); United States v. Vonn, 
    535 U.S. 55
    , 63 (2002), which
    he cannot do.
    Counsel’s motion is GRANTED, and Anfield’s appeal is DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4227

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 550

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/26/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023