United States v. Lassila, Mouhsen , 243 F. App'x 175 ( 2007 )

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 28, 2007
Decided July 3, 2007
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 06-4393
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin
v.
No. 06-CR-35
MOUSHEN LASSILA,
Defendant-Appellant. William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
ORDER
Moushen Lassila led several conspirators who manufactured fraudulent
credit cards and stole $1.5 million in merchandise. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, and was sentenced within the
guidelines range to 125 months’ imprisonment. As part of a written plea
agreement, Lassila waived the right to appeal his sentence except on a few limited
grounds that are not relevant here. Despite this waiver, Lassila directed his
appointed counsel to appeal his sentence, but counsel now seeks to withdraw under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous
basis for appeal. Lassila has responded that he wants to challenge his sentence, see
Cir. R. 51(b), but he does not add to the potential arguments evaluated by counsel.
No. 06-4393 Page 2
Our review is thus limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially
adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel identifies two possible grounds on which Lassila could challenge his
sentence, but the appeal waiver makes both frivolous. An appeal waiver is
enforceable so long as it is knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Lockwood,
416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Lassila cannot contest the voluntariness of his
waiver unless he challenges his guilty plea, see United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d
638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002), which he has not indicated that he wishes to do.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Lassila’s motion
for appointed counsel is DENIED. The appeal is DISMISSED.