USA v. Michael Williams
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 August 18, 2009 Decided Nocember 4, 2009 Before ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 083607 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PlaintiffAppellee, v. No. 3:07cr00133RLMCAN1 MICHAEL TERRELL WILLIAMS, DefendantAppellant. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
O R D E R Michael Williams pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and using a firearm in furtherance of the drug offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). As part of his plea agreement Williams waived his right to appeal, and the district court sentenced him to 192 months' imprisonment. Williams appealed anyway, but his appointed counsel have moved to withdraw because they cannot discern a nonfrivolous
basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has not responded to our invitation to comment on counsel's motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Our review is confined to the potential issues identified in counsel's facially adequate supporting brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 97374 (7th Cir. 2002). Williams does not want his guilty plea set aside, so counsel correctly refrained from examining the adequacy of the plea colloquy or voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 67072 (7th Cir. 2002). The plea agreement and appeal waiver are thus enforceable, see Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 45455 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007), rendering this appeal frivolous. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?