Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedFebruary10,2010
DecidedFebruary11,2010
Before
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
JOHNDANIELTINDER,CircuitJudge
DAVIDF.HAMILTON,CircuitJudge
No.092301
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
MIGUELMARISCAL,JR.,
DefendantAppellant.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheSouthernDistrictofIllinois.
No.073018201WDS
WilliamD.Stiehl,
Judge.
ORDER
MiguelMariscalpleadedguiltytoconspiracytodistributecocaineandmarijuana,
conspiracytopossesscocaineandmarijuanawiththeintenttodistribute,andpossessionof
cocainewiththeintenttodistribute.See21U.S.C.§§846,841(a)(1).Hewassentencedto
240months’imprisonment.Mariscalappeals,buthisappointedcounselseekstowithdraw
pursuanttoAndersv.California,386U.S.738(1967),becauseshecannotidentifyany
nonfrivolousissuestoraiseonMariscal’sbehalf.Weconfineourreviewtothepotential
issuesidentifiedincounsel’sfaciallyadequatebriefandMariscal’sresponseunderCircuit
Rule51(b).SeeUnitedStatesv.Schuh,289F.3d968,973–74(7thCir.2002).Wegrant
counsel’smotiontowithdrawanddismissMariscal’sappeal.
Mariscal’spleaagreementcontainedawaiverprecludinghimfromappealingor
challenginghisconvictionorsentenceunderanyprovisionoffederallawunlesshewas
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No.092301 Page2
sentencedtoatermofimprisonmentabovehisguidelinesrange.Italsocontainedan
estimateofMariscal’soffenselevelandcriminalhistorycategoryunderthesentencing
guidelines.ButbothMariscalandthegovernmentweresurprisedbythepresentence
investigationreport,whichcalculatedanoffenselevelandcriminalhistorycategorygreater
thaneitherpartyhadanticipated.Mariscalthoughthislawyerhadmisledhimandmoved
towithdrawtheplea.Thedistrictcourtappointedanewlawyer,andafterconsultingwith
him,Mariscalchangedhismindandwithdrewhismotion.Thedistrictcourtadoptedthe
presentenceinvestigationreport’scalculations,grantedthegovernment’smotionfora
belowguidelinessentenceinrecognitionofthesubstantialassistanceMariscalhad
provided,andsentencedMariscalto240months’imprisonment.
Mariscaladvisedcounselthathehaschangedhismindagainandnowwishesto
withdrawhisplea,socounselproperlyconsiderschallengingwhetherthepleawas
knowingandvoluntary.Weagreewithcounselthattheonlypossibleerrorthedistrict
courtcommittedduringthechangeofpleacolloquywasneglectingtoinformMariscalof
hisrighttopersistinhispleaofnotguilty.SeeFED. R. CRIM . P. 11(b)(1)(B).Buttheerroris
harmlessbecause,havingpreviouslymovedtowithdrawhisguiltyplea,Mariscalalready
knewtheinformationthedistrictcourtomitted.SeeUnitedStatesv.Driver,242F.3d767,769
(7thCir.2001).Mariscal’spleaagreementalsoadvisedhimofthisright.
CounselnextconsiderschallengingMariscal’ssentence.Butascounselproperly
observes,Mariscal’sappealwaiverforeclosesanychallengetohissentenceexceptaclaim
thatitexceededthestatutorymaximum,thatthedistrictcourtreliedonanunconstitutional
factor,orthattheappealwaiveritselfwastheproductofineffectiveassistance.SeeUnited
Statesv.Lockwood,416F.3d604,608(7thCir.2005);UnitedStatesv.Bownes,405F.3d634,637
(7thCir.2005);Jonesv.UnitedStates,167F.3d1142,1145(7thCir.1999).
Mariscal’sresponsetocounsel’smotiondoescontainallegationsthatthelawyerwho
negotiatedtheappealwaiverprovidedineffectiveassistance.Anineffectiveassistance
claim,however,isbestraisedoncollateralreview,whereacompleterecordcanbe
developed.Massarov.UnitedStates,538U.S.500,504(2003);UnitedStatesv.Harris,394F.3d
543,557–58(7thCir.2005).
WeGRANTcounsel’smotiontowithdrawandDISMISSMariscal’sappeal.

-- 2 of 2 --