United States v. Navarrete

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Navarrete

353 F. App'x 17

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2009

DocketNo. 08-4145

StatusPublished

This text of 353 F. App'x 17 (United States v. Navarrete) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Navarrete, 353 F. App'x 17 (7th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Sergio Navarrete pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment. In his plea agreement he promised to forgo any appeal of his conviction or sentence. Navarrete filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyers move to withdraw because they cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Navar-rete did not respond to counsel’s submission. See Cir. R. 51(b). Our review is limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. United States v. Cano-Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel begin by telling us that Navarrete does not wish to challenge his guilty plea. Counsel thus properly refrain from discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel next consider whether Navarrete has any other basis on which to challenge his sentence. But the appeal waiver forecloses any argument challenging his sentence except a claim that the district court relied on a constitutionally impermissible factor at sentencing or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 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). Neither of these issues applies here. Navarrete’s appeal waiver stands with his unchallenged guilty plea, United States v. Cole, 569 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir.2007), and any challenge to his sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Sergio Navarrete pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment. In his plea agreement he promised to forgo any appeal of his conviction or sentence. Navarrete filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyers move to withdraw because they cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Navar-rete did not respond to counsel’s submission. See Cir. R. 51(b). Our review is limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. United States v. Cano-Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel begin by telling us that Navarrete does not wish to challenge his guilty plea. Counsel thus properly refrain from discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671-72 (7th Cir.2002).

Counsel next consider whether Navarrete has any other basis on which to challenge his sentence. But the appeal waiver forecloses any argument challenging his sentence except a claim that the district court relied on a constitutionally impermissible factor at sentencing or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 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). Neither of these issues applies here. Navarrete’s appeal waiver stands with his unchallenged guilty plea, United States v. Cole, 569 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir.2007), and any challenge to his sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F. App'x 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-navarrete-ca7-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack