United States of America v. Gregory Burt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 25, 2007
Decided April 25, 2007
Before
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 06-4074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GREGORY BURT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
No. 1:05-CR-66
Theresa L. Springmann,
Judge.
O R D E R
Gregory Burt sold crack cocaine to a confidential informant in Fort Wayne,
Indiana, on two occasions. Fort Wayne police officers obtained a search warrant for
Burt’s apartment after the second sale, and during their search, found a large
amount of crack cocaine, several crack pipes, and a loaded .22 caliber handgun. In
September 2005 Burt was indicted on one count of possessing and one count of
distributing crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Burt pleaded guilty to
possessing crack cocaine in August 2006, and the district court sentenced him to
151 months’ imprisonment, the low end of the advisory guidelines range. As part of
his plea agreement, Burt expressly waived the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence “to any Court on any ground, including any claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel . . . .” Despite the waiver, Burt filed a notice of appeal. His appointed
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-4074 Page 2
lawyer now moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
because he is unable to discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. Counsel’s
supporting brief is facially adequate, and Burt has not responded to counsel’s
motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), so we limit our review of the record to the potential issues
counsel has identified. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.
2002).
Counsel first questions whether Burt might withdraw his plea. But, as
counsel notes, Burt has never expressed a desire to withdraw his plea so any
discussion about the plea would be inappropriate. See United States v. Knox, 287
F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel also considers challenging Burt’s sentence,
or raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but given the broadly worded
appeal waiver, we agree that these potential arguments would be frivolous. See
United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --