United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 23, 2020 

Decided October 26, 2020 

Before 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge 

No. 19-3375 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 

v. 

SHAWN C. NORMAN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 

Fort Wayne Division. 

No. 1:14CR4-001 

Holly A. Brady, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Shawn Norman pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

and was sentenced by the district court as a career offender, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to a 

below-Guidelines term of 151 months’ imprisonment. Although his plea agreement 

included an appellate waiver, Norman appeals. His appointed counsel asserts that the 

appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 

(1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that 

an appeal of this kind would be expected to involve. Because her analysis appears 

thorough, and Norman has not filed a timely response to her motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 19-3375 Page 2 

we limit our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 

748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).1

 In her brief, counsel states that she consulted with Norman and confirmed that 

he does not wish to withdraw his guilty plea, so counsel properly omits discussion of 

any arguments related to the plea’s validity. 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 considers whether Norman could challenge his career-offender status—

a potential challenge explicitly left open under his otherwise broad appellate waiver. 

The district court designated Norman a career offender based on two prior felony 

convictions in 2001 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Counsel considers arguing that, 

based on the 2001 version of the Guidelines, these two convictions should be treated as 

“related” cases for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Although the two convictions 

arose in different jurisdictions (the Northern District of Indiana and the Eastern District 

of Michigan), she notes that the offenses involved a singular course of conduct: 

Norman’s possession of a controlled substance in Indiana related to his conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine in Michigan. 

We agree with counsel that any challenge to Norman’s career-offender 

designation would be frivolous. As counsel notes, the 2018 version of the Guidelines in 

effect at Norman’s sentencing envisioned that his prior felony convictions would be 

counted separately because the offenses were not contained in the same charging 

instrument and the sentences were not imposed on the same day. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.2(a)(2); United States v. Neff, 598 F.3d 320, 322 (7th Cir. 2010). A district court must 

apply the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing “in its entirety,” 

unless doing so would violate ex post facto rules. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). Further, “[i]f the 

defendant is convicted of two offenses, the first committed before, and the second after, 

a revised edition of the Guidelines Manual became effective, the revised edition of the 

Guidelines Manual is to be applied to both offenses.” Id. § 1B1.11(b)(3) (the “one book 

rule”); see United States v. Fletcher, 763 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2014) (no ex post facto 

problem applying newer, harsher version of child-pornography guidelines to multiple 

counts that straddled those guidelines’ amendment because grouping guidelines and 

the one-book rule provided adequate notice that all counts would be subject to the new 

1 Norman filed a submission with this court on October 6, 2020, but any response 

under Circuit Rule 51(b) needed to have been filed by July 9, 2020, so we do not address 

the basis of his submission. 
No. 19-3375 Page 3 

version). The court’s application here of the 2018 version posed no ex post facto threat 

because Norman’s commission of the current offense occurred in 2013, well after the 

2007 amendment to the Guidelines that redefined how prior offenses would be treated 

under § 4A1.2(a)(2). See U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. III, amend. 709. 

 Counsel lastly considers whether Norman could challenge any other aspect of his 

sentence, but rightly concludes that such a challenge would be precluded by the 

appellate waiver in his plea agreement. In it, Norman waived his right to “appeal or to 

contest my conviction and all components of my sentence or the manner in which my 

conviction or my sentence was determined or imposed,” reserving the right to appeal 

only his career-offender designation. Because an appellate waiver “stands or falls with 

the guilty plea” (and as we noted, Norman does not wish to challenge his guilty plea), 

we would enforce the waiver here. See United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732, 741 

(7th Cir. 2014). 

 We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.