NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 February 10, 2010
Decided February 23, 2010
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 08‐3889
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 06 CR 526‐1
KENNETH ALLEN,
Defendant‐Appellant. James B. Zagel,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kenneth Allen entered into an agreement to plead guilty to one count of conspiring
to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and one count of possessing heroin with
intent to distribute, id. § 841(a)(1). The parties agreed that Allen would be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment calculated at 67 percent of the low end of either the applicable
guidelines range or the statutory minimum sentence, whichever is greater. See FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11(c)(1)(C). The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Allen to a total
of 60 months’ imprisonment—four months less than the agreed‐upon calculation. Allen
appealed. His appointed counsel now seek to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), because they have concluded that the appeal is frivolous. We invited Allen
to comment on counsel’s submission, see CIR. R. 51(b), but he did not respond. Our review,
though, is limited to the potential issues identified in counsel’s brief, United States v. Cano‐
No. 08‐3889 Page 2
Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th
Cir. 2002), provided the brief appears to be thorough and professional; and it does.
We lack jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(c)(1) to review Allen’s sentence. When a
defendant agrees to a specific Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence, Congress has limited our
jurisdiction to review the sentence to four grounds: that his guilty plea was involuntary,
that the sentence imposed is greater than what he bargained for, that the guidelines range
was improperly calculated, or that his sentence was imposed in violation of the law. See 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), (c)(1); United States v. Gibson, 490 F.3d 604, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); United
States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 363‐64 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934,
941 (7th Cir. 1996). None is present. Counsel informs us that Allen does not want his guilty
pleas set aside, and we know that his 60‐month sentence, which was based on a proper
calculation of the guidelines range, is four months less than what he bargained for, and does
not exceed the statutory maximum of 40 years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
Counselʹs motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.