Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01270/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kyle Langner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 18, 2016

Decided August 18, 2016

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1270

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

KYLE LANGNER,

Defendant‐Appellant.

   

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 3:15CR00104‐001

James D. Peterson,

Judge.

O R D E R

Kyle Langner was the getaway driver for his half‐brother and friend, who

robbed banks by pointing guns at tellers and demanding money. On at least one

occasion Langner’s gun was used, and he admitted that he expected it to be shown

during the robbery. Langner pleaded guilty to two counts of armed bank robbery,

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of

violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to a total of 114 months’

imprisonment—30 months on each bank‐robbery count, to run concurrently, plus a

statutorily required consecutive 84 months on the brandishing count. Langner filed a

notice of appeal, but his appointed attorney asserts that the appeal is frivolous and

moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Langner has not

responded to our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-1270 Document: 21 Filed: 08/18/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐1270    Page 2

Counsel’s brief explains the nature of this case and addresses the potential issues that

an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief is

adequate, we limit our discussion to the issues identified in that brief. 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 begins by addressing whether Langner could challenge his conviction,

but he neglects to say if he complied with this court’s requirement that he ask Langner

whether he wants his guilty plea set aside. See 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). Counsel does

not clarify the matter when he states obliquely in a footnote that “Langner is not

arguing his guilty plea was not [entered] knowingly, voluntarily, and intellectually,

with sufficient awareness of the relevant facts and circumstances.” Yet counsel’s

omission does not require that we deny the Anders motion. The transcript of the plea

colloquy confirms that the district judge accepted Langner’s plea only after

substantially complying with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11. See United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 688–89 (7th Cir. 2003);

United States v. Akinsola, 105 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1997). The judge advised Langner of

his constitutional rights, the charges against him, the maximum penalties, and the

statutory minimum seven‐year consecutive sentence for brandishing a firearm. See FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1). The judge also found that Langner’s plea was voluntary, knowing,

and supported by an adequate factual basis, including Langner’s admission that his gun

had been shown—and he expected it to be shown—during one of the robberies. See FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2), (3).

The lone argument counsel does consider is whether there was insufficient

evidence to support Langner’s plea of guilty to brandishing a firearm. Counsel posits

that Langner was only the driver and did not know that the firearm would be

brandished. By pleading guilty, however, Langner waived his right to contest the

sufficiency of the evidence; as a general rule, a defendant who pleads guilty waives his

right to appeal any nonjurisdictional issues. See United States v. Adame‐Hernandez,

763 F.3d 818, 828 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Phillips, 645 F.3d 859, 862 (7th Cir. 2011);

Gomez v. Berge, 434 F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 2006). So long as his guilty plea is

adequate—and it is—this argument would fail.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

Case: 16-1270 Document: 21 Filed: 08/18/2016 Pages: 2