NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 May 31, 2016
Decided June 1, 2016
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐2802
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 10 CR 772
GILBERTO MIGUEL LAUREANO,
Defendant‐Appellant. James B. Zagel,
Judge.
O R D E R
Gilberto Laureano pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
the intent to distribute 9.7 kilograms of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), after he enlisted a
co‐conspirator to drive with him to Mexico, pick up heroin, and drive back to Chicago
with the drugs. Laureano was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory
minimum, and 5 years’ supervised release. Although his plea agreement included a
broad appeal waiver, Laureano appealed. His lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous
and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited
Laureano to comment on counsel’s motion, but he has not responded. See CIR. R. 51(b).
Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses the
No. 15‐2802 Page 2
issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because counsel’s
analysis appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel
discusses. 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 tells us that Laureano does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, and thus
we do not discuss the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of Laureano’s plea
colloquy. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11; United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012);
United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). It follows, counsel properly
explains, that any challenge to Laureano’s sentence would be frivolous. Because an
appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, see United States v. Zitt, 714 F.3d 511,
515 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2011), we must
enforce Laureano’s waiver. The district court did not rely on any impermissible factors
in sentencing, and Laureano’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum of life.
See Dowell v. United States, 694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bownes,
405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005). And the waiver forecloses any challenge to Laureano’s
conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018
(7th Cir. 2016). If Laureano encounters problems with these conditions when supervised
release begins, he may seek modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). See Campbell,
813 F.3d at 1019; United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 514 (7th Cir. 2016).
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.