# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 23, 2019
Decided October 23, 2019

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER

, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE

, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON

, Circuit Judge

No. 18

- 3669

UNITED STATES OF AME RICA

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v

.

KEITH HALLIBURTON

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois

.

No. 17

- 20028

- 001

Sue E. Myerscough

, Judge

.

O R D E R

Keith Halliburton conditionally ple a d ed guilty to po ssessi ng with intent to
distribute cocaine base , 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

, preserv ing the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. See F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11 (a)(2). In h is plea agreement

, he otherwise waived his right to appeal “any and all issu es relating to [his] plea agreement and conviction and to the sentence,” except the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the effective ness of the assistance of counsel. Based on his prior drug

- felony conviction, h e received the statutory minimum sentence o f 120 months in prison and 8 years’ supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).

H alliburton appeals , but his appointed attorney asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 18

- 3669 Page 2

Halliburton opposes counsel’s motion

. See C IR

. R. 51 (b). Because counsel’s brief thoroughly addresses the issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to
involve , we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses and Hallibu rton’ s response

. See United States v. Bey , 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).

The United States Postal Service intercepted two packages containing 19 pounds of marijuana addressed to “Lisa Lawis” at an address in Decatur, Illinois

. Police officers
obtained a judicial ord er permitting them to outfit the packages with GPS tracking
devi ces and breakaway filaments to alert them when the packages were opened. Officers also obtained an anticipatory warrant allowing them to search any person who took control over the packages after delivery and any premises (including vehicles) to which the packages were brought. Various conditions had to be met before officers could execute the warrant, chiefly, delivery of the packages to “Lisa La w i s” or an adult accepting delivery on her behalf.

Police officers suspected that Halliburton was the intended recipient. They knew
that he had paid a water bill at the delivery address within the past year, that he had been associated with another packag e containing marijuana two years earlier (the record does not explain the association) , and that he was on federal supervised release for a drug felony

. A detective had previously met with, and could identify, Halliburton, who was living near the delivery address at a halfway house.

A p ostal i nspector dressed as a mail carrier left the packages at the delivery address after no one inside the residence responded. A short time later, o fficers
observed Halliburton arrive in a silver Volkswagen and t ake both p ackages . They followed him as he drove across town, pulled into the driveway of another residence

, place d the packages in a white Pontiac van parked there , and then drove away in the Volkswagen

. A police detective pulled him over

. After hearing Miranda warnings, Halliburton admitted that the packages were meant for him and that they contained marijuana. He was then taken back to the residence where the Pontiac was parked, and
he gave another detective permission to search it

. U sing Halliburton’s key to unlock the van, officers found the packages, more marijuana, and cocaine. Halliburton later confessed to possess ing the cocaine and was charged with that offense.

Halliburton mo ved to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the search

. Althoug h an evidentiary hearing was scheduled, the parties instead stipulated to the facts recounted above

. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion , and t he district judge adopted that recommendation over Halliburton’s objection. The district judge conc luded that the search was proper because : (1) the conditions precedent to theNo. 18

- 3669 Page 3

execution of the anticipatory search warrant had been met; and (2) even if not, the officers did not need a warrant because they had reasonable suspicion to stop
Halliburton

, and he validly consented to the search. Halliburton then conditionally pleaded guilty , and, after sentencing, appealed.

Counsel notes that, apart from the denial of the suppression motion, Halliburton waived his right to challenge anything but the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the effectiveness of his trial counsel ’s assistance . When a defendant knowingly and
volunta rily waives his appellate rights in express and unambiguous terms, we will enforce the waiver. United States v. Campbell , 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016). Thus, “[a]n appeal waiver stands or falls with the underlying guilty plea

. ” United States v. Zitt

, 714 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013 )

. Here, Halliburton does not dispute the knowing or voluntary nature of his guilty plea. As required, counsel consulted with Halliburton
about the risk s and benefits of challenging his plea and represents to us that Halli burton does not wish to withdraw it; counsel therefore appropriately refrains from discussing the plea’s validity. See United States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). B ecause the guilty plea remains unchallenged, Halliburton’s “ clear and broad ” waiver forecloses any appellate arguments he did not expressly preserve. See Campbell

, 813 F.3d at 1018.

With respect to the denial of Halliburton’s motion to suppress , c ounsel assumes
that he could make a nonfrivolous argument that the anticipatory warrant’s conditions precedent were not met, and therefore officers lacked authority to execute it

. Halliburton raises this argument in his response to counsel’s motion. B ut counsel correctly notes that when a district court announces two alternative holdings, an appellant must overcome both to prevail. See Boogard v. Nat’l Hockey League , 891 F.3d 289, 295 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Hatchett , 245 F.3d 625, 644

– 45 (7th Cir. 2001)

. Therefore, counsel assess es whether it would be frivolous to argue that , although
Halliburton consent ed to the search of the van, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion

to stop him before he did so.

Counsel rightly concludes that this contention would be futile

. To justify an investigatory stop, o fficer s must have a reasonable suspicion , based on “ specific and articulable facts, ” that an individual has committed a felony

. United States v. Rui z , 7 85 F.3d 1134

, 1141 (7th Cir. 201 5 ) ( quot ing Terry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 1, 2 1

– 22 (1968))

. Here, officers not only witness ed Halliburton take the two packages that they knew contained marijuana
, but they were also aware that he was associated with the delivery address
and had a history of drug trafficking. See United States v. Bull ock , 632 F.3d 1004, 1013

– 14 (7th Cir. 2011). Because there was reasonable suspicion to stop Halliburton, and he thenNo. 18

- 3669 Page 4

consented to the search, there is no need to address further Halliburton’s argument that the warrant’s conditions never materialized.

Ha lliburton also wishes to argue that the traffic stop was really a custodial arrest without probable cause because the detective immediately tol d him to get out of his car, placed him in handcuffs

, and seated him in a police car . As counsel rightly notes

, h owever, Halliburton waived this argument by stipulating that he was pulled over pursuant to an “investigatory stop

, ” see United States v. Lockwood , 789 F.3d 773, 780 (7th Cir. 2015), and by not raising the argument before the district court

, see United Sta tes v. McMillian , 786 F.3d 630, 635

– 36 (7th Cir. 2015)

. To the extent
Halliburton contends that his trial lawyer’s choice to stipulate was ineffective assistance, that claim would be best addressed through a collateral proceeding where
Halliburton can develop the record. See Massaro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 505

– 06 (2003); United States v. Flores , 739 F.3d 337, 341 (7th Ci r. 2014).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED

, and the appeal is DISMISSED.