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 AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEITH HALLIBURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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 pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to 

distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), preserving the right to challenge the denial 

of his motion to suppress evidence. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(a)(2). In his plea agreement,

he otherwise waived his right to appeal “any and all issues relating to [his] plea 

agreement and conviction and to the sentence,” except the voluntariness of his guilty 

plea and the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel. Based on his prior drug-felony 

conviction, he received the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison and 8 

years’ supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). 

Halliburton 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 32.1
No. 18-3669 Page 2

Halliburton opposes counsel’s motion. See CIR. 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 Halliburton’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 order permitting them to outfit the packages with GPS tracking 

devices 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 Lawis” 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 package 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 postal inspector dressed as a mail carrier left the packages at the delivery 

address after no one inside the residence responded. A short time later, officers 

observed Halliburton arrive in a silver Volkswagen and take both packages. They 

followed him as he drove across town, pulled into the driveway of another residence,

placed 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. Using Halliburton’s key to unlock the 

van, officers found the packages, more marijuana, and cocaine. Halliburton later 

confessed to possessing the cocaine and was charged with that offense.

Halliburton moved to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the search. 

Although an evidentiary hearing was scheduled, the parties instead stipulated to the 

facts recounted above. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, and the 

district judge adopted that recommendation over Halliburton’s objection. The district 

judge concluded that the search was proper because: (1) the conditions precedent to the 
No. 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 

voluntarily 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 risks and benefits of challenging his plea and represents to us that Halliburton 

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). Because 

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, counsel 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. But 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 assesses whether it would be frivolous to argue that, although 

Halliburton consented 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, officers must have a reasonable suspicion, based on “specific and 

articulable facts,” that an individual has committed a felony. United States v. Ruiz, 

785 F.3d 1134, 1141 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22 (1968)). Here, 

officers not only witnessed 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. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1013–14 

(7th Cir. 2011). Because there was reasonable suspicion to stop Halliburton, and he then 
No. 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.

Halliburton also wishes to argue that the traffic stop was really a custodial arrest 

without probable cause because the detective immediately told him to get out of his car, 

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

however, 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 States 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 Cir. 2014).

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.