Appeal from the United States District Court for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Sergio Baltazar-Lujano

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 20, 2015
Decided January 21, 2015
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐2510 Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
SERGIO BALTAZAR‐LUJANO,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 12 CR 384‐3
Rubén Castillo,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Sergio Baltazar‐Lujano and four of his cohorts were arrested in 2012 for
participating in a large‐scale drug ring in Chicago. Baltazar‐Lujano pleaded guilty to
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin and possessing a firearm in
furtherance of the drug‐trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 846; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In
the plea agreement, he waived all appellate issues that might have arisen had he gone to
trial except for issues related to the validity of the plea and the sentence imposed. The
district judge sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 120 months on the conspiracy
count and a consecutive 60 months for the gun offense, also the statutory minimum.
Baltazar‐Lujano now appeals, but his appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal is
frivolous and moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Baltazar‐Lujano has not accepted our invitation to respond to counselʹs motion. See 7TH
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14‐2510 Page 2
C IR . R. 51(b). Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and
addresses the issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because
the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that
counsel has discussed. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United
States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).
Counsel begins by noting that Baltazar‐Lujano does not wish to challenge his
guilty pleas. Thus, counsel appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the
plea colloquy and the voluntariness of the pleas. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d
348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671–72 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel considers whether Baltazar‐Lujano could challenge his 180‐month
sentence as unreasonable and correctly concludes that this challenge would be frivolous.
Baltazar‐Lujano’s sentence was below the combined calculated guidelines range of 168
to 210 months on the conspiracy count and the statutory minimum 60 consecutive
months on the gun count. Counsel offers nothing to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness that applies to this below‐guidelines sentence, nor can we find any
reason to disturb it. See United States v. Annoreno, 713 F.3d 352, 360 (7th Cir. 2013). The
court adequately considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—including the
seriousness of the offenses and Baltazar‐Lujano’s role in the conspiracy—and concluded
the statutory minimum term was sufficient.
Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --