Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03889/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03889-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Allen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ALLEN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

                     

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06 CR 526‐1

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‐

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 08-3889 Document: 30 Filed: 02/23/2010 Pages: 2
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.

Case: 08-3889 Document: 30 Filed: 02/23/2010 Pages: 2