Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01457/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monta Y. Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 9, 2016*

Decided November 9, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

   

MONTA Y. ANDERSON,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 13‐CR‐10064‐001

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

Monta Anderson appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion seeking to

rescind his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).

We affirm that decision.

As part of a binding plea agreement, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1)(C), Anderson

stipulated that the conspiracy involved at least a kilogram of heroin and that the heroin

he sold caused James Reader’s overdose and death. The district court sentenced

Anderson to 223 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release. Anderson

filed a notice of appeal, but we recently granted his attorney’s request to withdraw

                                                 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the dispositive issue has been authoritatively decided. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1457 Document: 20 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐1457    Page 2

under Anders and dismissed the appeal. United States v. Anderson No. 15‐3769, 2016 WL

3006890, at *2 (7th Cir. May 24, 2016). Meanwhile, with his direct appeal still pending,

Anderson filed in the district court a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The

district court denied the motion and told Anderson that he must follow the proper

avenues of appeal now that judgment had been entered. Anderson appeals that decision.

The district court was correct that it could not reach the merits of Anderson’s

motion. Anderson had an appeal pending before this court, and resolving his motion

would have impermissibly disturbed the judgment under review. See Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); United States v. McHugh, 528 F.3d 538, 540

(7th Cir. 2008). The district court denied Anderson’s motion, but in fact the district court

did not have subject matter jurisdiction because of the pending appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1457 Document: 20 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pages: 2