# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 16
, 2018

Decided March 23 , 2018

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK
, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION
, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES
, Circuit Judge

No. 17

- 2385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v

.

ALLEN C. IROE G BULEM
, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

.

No. 15 CR 52

- 1

Thomas M. Durkin
, Judge

.

O R D E R

Allen Ir o egbulem was indicted on two counts of sex trafficking a minor
, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), (b)(2)
, and one count of sex trafficking a minor by force, fraud, or coercion, id. § 1591(a), (b)(1). He pleaded guilty to one charge under § 1591(b)(2) pursuant to an agreement in which the United States promised to dismiss the other

two counts

. F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(c)(1)(A)

. The district court sentenced Ir o egbulem to 240 months in prison
, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Iroegbulem appeal s , even though his plea agreement contains a broad waiver of his right to appeal . His appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967 ). Counsel has submitted a brief explaining the nature of the case and addressing contentions that an appeal likely would involve

. Iroegbulem NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 17

- 2385 Page 2

opposes counsel’ s motion. See 7 TH C IR

. R. 51(b). Because counsel’ s analysis appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the points he discusses and I roegbulem’ s response. See United States v. Bey , 74 8 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014)

.

Counsel first represents that Iroegbulem does not want his guilty plea set aside
, a nd thus counsel appropriately forgoes addressing the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. Konczak , 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox
, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding his guilty plea, Iroegbulem contends that the statute sustaining his co nviction is unconstitutional because it was enacted without a quorum of Congress . But this c ontention is barred by Iroegbulem’s appeal waiver in which he

“ express ly waive[d] h is right to appeal [ his ] conviction

. ” See United States v. Worthen
, 842 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 2016) (refusing to consider defendant’s argument that his prior conviction was an invalid basis for elongat ing his sentence bec ause the defendant had waived the right to appeal his sentence). The contention, in any event, is m erit less; § 1591 was properly enacted and is binding. See Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106

– 386, 114 Stat. 1464 (including a n act “[ t ] o combat trafficking in persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary servitude ” among House bills approved by the President on October 28, 2000).

Counsel next considers whether Iroegbulem could challenge his sen tence, but rightly concludes that this argument also would be foreclosed by the appeal waiver. Iroegbulem waived his right to appeal “any part of the sentence (or the manner in which that sentence was determined), includin g any term of imprisonment ... withi n the maximums provided by law.” Because the guilty plea stands, so does the waiver. See United States v. Zitt , 714 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013). A k nowing and voluntary
waiver of appe l late rights will be enforced unless a n appeal presents an “exceptional
situation ,” United States v. Litos , 847 F.3d 906, 910 (7th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Smith
, 759 F.3d 702, 706 (7th Cir. 2014) , e. g. , the sentence rests on constitutionally impermissible criteria like race, United States v. Adkins , 743 F.3d 176, 192

– 93 (7t h Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Bownes , 405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005) , or it exceeds the maximum punishment allowed under the plain terms of a statute, United States v. Carson , 855 F.3d 828, 831 (7th Cir. 2017)

. The district court did not rely on any impermissible factors at sentencing, and Iroegbulem’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum of life
, s ee 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(2)

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