NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 October 20, 2021 Decided October 28, 2021 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 20-3047 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 18-CR-30014-NJR-01 ROMELLO BLAND, Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Defendant-Appellant. Chief Judge. ORDER Romello Bland carjacked three people at gunpoint. He pleaded guilty to each count of a 7-count indictment and was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment, the minimum sentence because of 3 mandatory consecutive 7-year terms for brandishing a firearm during the carjackings, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Although his plea agreement contains a broad appeal waiver, Bland filed a notice of appeal. His appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and raises potential issues that an appeal like this would be expected to involve. Because counsel’s No. 20-3047 Page 2 analysis appears thorough, and Bland has not responded to the motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). Counsel confirms that Bland wishes to withdraw his guilty plea but concludes that attempting to do so would be frivolous. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). A defendant can withdraw a guilty plea only for fair and just reasons, which include his legal innocence or actual innocence or his entry of an unknowing or involuntary guilty plea. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Barr, 960 F.3d 906, 917 (7th Cir. 2020). Counsel represents that Bland wants to challenge his guilty plea on each basis. Because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, our review would be for plain error. See United States v. Schaul, 962 F.3d 917, 921 (7th Cir. 2020). We agree with counsel that any argument would be frivolous. First, it would be frivolous to argue that Bland is actually or legally innocent of any charge. At his plea hearing, Bland confirmed that he had read, understood, and signed the stipulation of facts, and he reaffirmed his agreement after hearing it read aloud. The district court explained the elements of each offense, and in pleading guilty, Bland admitted them. United States v. Paulette, 858 F.3d 1055, 1059 (7th Cir. 2017). To argue that he is factually or legally innocent now, Bland would have to deny his testimony at the plea hearing; perjury is not a fair and just reason to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 2015). Second, counsel properly rejects any argument that Bland’s plea was not knowing and voluntary. The transcript of Bland’s plea colloquy …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals