NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1 United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱFebruaryȱ10,ȱ2010 DecidedȱFebruaryȱ11,ȱ2010 Before RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge JOHNȱDANIELȱTINDER,ȱCircuitȱJudge DAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ2301 UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict PlaintiffȬAppellee, CourtȱforȱtheȱSouthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois. v. No.ȱ07Ȭ30182Ȭ01ȬWDS MIGUELȱMARISCAL,ȱJR., WilliamȱD.ȱStiehl,ȱ DefendantȬAppellant. Judge. OȱRȱDȱEȱR MiguelȱMariscalȱpleadedȱguiltyȱtoȱconspiracyȱtoȱdistributeȱcocaineȱandȱmarijuana, conspiracyȱtoȱpossessȱcocaineȱandȱmarijuanaȱwithȱtheȱintentȱtoȱdistribute,ȱandȱpossessionȱof cocaineȱwithȱtheȱintentȱtoȱdistribute.ȱȱSeeȱ21ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§ȱ846,ȱ841(a)(1).ȱȱHeȱwasȱsentencedȱto 240ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment.ȱȱMariscalȱappeals,ȱbutȱhisȱappointedȱcounselȱseeksȱtoȱwithdraw pursuantȱtoȱAndersȱv.ȱCalifornia,ȱ386ȱU.S.ȱ738ȱ(1967),ȱbecauseȱsheȱcannotȱidentifyȱany nonfrivolousȱissuesȱtoȱraiseȱonȱMariscal’sȱbehalf.ȱȱWeȱconfineȱourȱreviewȱtoȱtheȱpotential issuesȱidentifiedȱinȱcounsel’sȱfaciallyȱadequateȱbriefȱandȱMariscal’sȱresponseȱunderȱCircuit Ruleȱ51(b).ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱSchuh,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱ968,ȱ973–74ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).ȱȱWeȱgrant counsel’sȱmotionȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱdismissȱMariscal’sȱappeal. Mariscal’sȱpleaȱagreementȱcontainedȱaȱwaiverȱprecludingȱhimȱfromȱappealingȱor challengingȱhisȱconvictionȱorȱsentenceȱunderȱanyȱprovisionȱofȱfederalȱlawȱunlessȱheȱwas No.ȱ09Ȭ2301 Pageȱ2 sentencedȱtoȱaȱtermȱofȱimprisonmentȱaboveȱhisȱguidelinesȱrange.ȱȱItȱalsoȱcontainedȱan estimateȱofȱMariscal’sȱoffenseȱlevelȱandȱcriminalȬhistoryȱcategoryȱunderȱtheȱsentencing guidelines.ȱȱButȱbothȱMariscalȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱwereȱsurprisedȱbyȱtheȱpresentence investigationȱreport,ȱwhichȱcalculatedȱanȱoffenseȱlevelȱandȱcriminalȬhistoryȱcategoryȱgreater thanȱeitherȱpartyȱhadȱanticipated.ȱȱMariscalȱthoughtȱhisȱlawyerȱhadȱmisledȱhimȱandȱmoved toȱwithdrawȱtheȱplea.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱappointedȱaȱnewȱlawyer,ȱandȱafterȱconsultingȱwith him,ȱMariscalȱchangedȱhisȱmindȱandȱwithdrewȱhisȱmotion.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱadoptedȱthe presentenceȱinvestigationȱreport’sȱcalculations,ȱgrantedȱtheȱgovernment’sȱmotionȱforȱa belowȬguidelinesȱsentenceȱinȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱsubstantialȱassistanceȱMariscalȱhad provided,ȱandȱsentencedȱMariscalȱtoȱ240ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment. Mariscalȱadvisedȱcounselȱthatȱheȱhasȱchangedȱhisȱmindȱagainȱandȱnowȱwishesȱto withdrawȱhisȱplea,ȱsoȱcounselȱproperlyȱconsidersȱchallengingȱwhetherȱtheȱpleaȱwas knowingȱandȱvoluntary.ȱȱWeȱagreeȱwithȱcounselȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱpossibleȱerrorȱtheȱdistrict courtȱcommittedȱduringȱtheȱchangeȬofȬpleaȱcolloquyȱwasȱneglectingȱtoȱinformȱMariscalȱof hisȱrightȱtoȱpersistȱinȱhisȱpleaȱofȱnotȱguilty.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱCRIM.ȱP.ȱ11(b)(1)(B).ȱȱButȱtheȱerrorȱis harmlessȱbecause,ȱhavingȱpreviouslyȱmovedȱtoȱwithdrawȱhisȱguiltyȱplea,ȱMariscalȱalready knewȱtheȱinformationȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱomitted.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱDriver,ȱ242ȱF.3dȱ767,ȱ769 (7thȱCir.ȱ2001).ȱȱMariscal’sȱpleaȱagreementȱalsoȱadvisedȱhimȱofȱthisȱright. CounselȱnextȱconsidersȱchallengingȱMariscal’sȱsentence.ȱȱButȱasȱcounselȱproperly observes,ȱMariscal’sȱappealȱwaiverȱforeclosesȱanyȱchallengeȱtoȱhisȱsentenceȱexceptȱaȱclaim thatȱitȱexceededȱtheȱstatutoryȱmaximum,ȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱreliedȱonȱanȱunconstitutional factor,ȱorȱthatȱtheȱappealȱwaiverȱitselfȱwasȱtheȱproductȱofȱineffectiveȱassistance.ȱȱSeeȱUnited Statesȱv.ȱLockwood,ȱ416ȱF.3dȱ604,ȱ608ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱBownes,ȱ405ȱF.3dȱ634,ȱ637 (7thȱCir.ȱ2005);ȱJonesȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ167ȱF.3dȱ1142,ȱ1145ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1999). Mariscal’sȱresponseȱtoȱcounsel’sȱmotionȱdoesȱcontainȱallegationsȱthatȱtheȱlawyerȱwho negotiatedȱtheȱappealȱwaiverȱprovidedȱineffectiveȱassistance.ȱȱAnȱineffectiveȬassistance claim,ȱhowever,ȱisȱbestȱraisedȱonȱcollateralȱreview,ȱwhereȱaȱcompleteȱrecordȱcanȱbe developed.ȱȱMassaroȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ538ȱU.S.ȱ500,ȱ504ȱ(2003);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHarris,ȱ394ȱF.3d 543,ȱ557–58ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005). WeȱGRANTȱcounsel’sȱmotionȱtoȱwithdrawȱandȱDISMISSȱMariscal’sȱappeal.