In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit

____________________ 

No. 20-2385 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

COLIN H. COFFIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 20-CR-6 — William C. Griesbach, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED JANUARY 21, 2021 — DECIDED JANUARY 21, 2022

____________________ 

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and MANION and ST. EVE,

Circuit Judges. 

SYKES, Chief Judge. A felony defendant normally must be 

present in the courtroom at sentencing. FED. R. CRIM.

P.43(a)(3). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress

enacted legislation permitting district courts to conduct

felony plea and sentencing proceedings by videoconference

if certain prerequisites are met. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136,
2 No. 20-2385 

134 Stat. 281, § 15002(b)(2) (2020). As relevant here, a district 

judge may conduct a sentencing hearing by videoconference 

if the defendant consents, id. § 15002(b)(4), and the judge 

finds “for specific reasons” that the sentencing “cannot be 

further delayed without serious harm to the interests of 

justice,” § 15002(b)(2)(A).

In March 2020, just before the CARES Act was adopted, 

Colin Coffin pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully 

possessing a firearm as a felon. Sentencing was postponed 

several times, and Coffin eventually consented to a sentencing hearing by videoconference under the terms of the Act. 

The district judge confirmed Coffin’s consent on the record 

and found that further delay would seriously harm the 

interests of justice, noting several reasons why that was so. 

The judge then asked if there were any objections to his

findings. Coffin’s attorney said, “No, thank you.” Sentencing 

proceeded, and the judge imposed 60-month concurrent 

sentences. 

Coffin now contests the judge’s CARES Act findings, but 

his challenge comes far too late. He expressly consented to 

the videoconference sentencing and confirmed that he had 

no objection to the judge’s findings under the Act. That’s a 

waiver, so we affirm.

I. Background

On March 18, 2020, Coffin pleaded guilty in the Eastern 

District of Wisconsin to two counts of possessing a firearm

as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was detained pending sentencing. The following week Congress adopted the 

CARES Act, one of several large relief measures in response 
No. 20-2385 3 

to the COVID-19 pandemic. The president signed the Act on 

March 27. 

As relevant here, the CARES Act authorizes a district 

court to conduct a felony sentencing hearing by videoconference if four conditions are met: (1) the Judicial Conference 

of the United States “finds that emergency conditions ... 

with respect to [COVID-19] will materially affect the functioning of either the Federal courts generally or a particular 

district court,” § 15002(b)(2)(A); (2) the chief district judge 

finds that felony sentencing hearings “cannot be conducted 

in person without seriously jeopardizing public health,” id.; 

(3) “the district judge in a particular case finds for specific 

reasons that the ... sentencing ... cannot be further delayed 

without serious harm to the interests of justice,” id.; and 

(4) the defendant consents “after consultation with counsel,”

§ 15002(b)(4). 

The Judicial Conference made the requisite findings on 

March 29, and the chief judge of the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin suspended in-person proceedings and made the 

appropriate findings to implement videoconference plea and 

sentencing hearings. 

Coffin’s sentencing was initially scheduled for June 15. 

On April 9 he asked the district judge to lift the federal 

detainer so that he could serve a short unrelated state sentence in the Fond du Lac County Jail. The judge granted the 

motion but kept the June 15 sentencing date in place. On

May 28 the chief judge issued another order reauthorizing

videoconference sentencing hearings while allowing the 

resumption of in-person sentencings starting on July 1. A 

few days after this order, Coffin moved to postpone his 

June 15 sentencing date, noting that he had completed the 
4 No. 20-2385 

state sentence and was now out of custody. The judge granted the motion, resetting Coffin’s case for an in-person sentencing hearing on July 20.

Before that hearing took place, however, Coffin was arrested on state drug charges on July 17 and detained at the 

Winnebago County Jail. That made an in-person sentencing 

hearing impractical: transporting Coffin to federal court 

would have posed a health risk to all involved, and he may

have had to quarantine for 14 days pursuant to guidance 

from public-health officials. To avoid these logistical difficulties, Coffin consented to a sentencing hearing by videoconference, and the date was rescheduled to July 22. 

Sentencing proceeded as planned on that date, with

Coffin participating by videoconference from the county jail.

The judge began the hearing by formally asking Coffin if he 

consented to be sentenced by videoconference. Coffin replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” The judge then turned to the

required CARES Act findings: 

I’ll make the finding that the chief judge has already made the finding as part of a general order that in-person hearings pose serious risk to 

public health and safety, and ... that in this particular case[,] to delay the sentencing would seriously impact the interest[s] of justice.

It’s almost commonplace to say justice delayed 

is justice denied. I think Mr. Coffin has an interest in moving his case along[,] getting on

with his life[,] [and] getting some resolution of 

the case. To postpone it would require probably indefinite postponement to avoid the risk 
No. 20-2385 5 

of the public safety. ... And the more we delay 

cases, the more they stack up, which ultimately 

impacts other defendants as well.

So based upon all those concerns and considerations, I’m satisfied that this [videoconference hearing] makes sense rather than have 

Mr. Coffin be transported here by guards, 

whose health would be risked, and putting 

him back in quarantine in the Winnebago 

County Jail. So with that unless there’s objection to those findings, I’m ready to proceed.

The judge then asked the parties if they had any objections to these findings. Coffin’s attorney responded, “No, 

thank you.” The prosecutor likewise had no objection. With 

that, the sentencing hearing moved forward. The judge 

imposed concurrent sentences of 60 months. 

II. Discussion

Coffin’s appeal is limited to a challenge to his appearance 

at sentencing by videoconference. He concedes that three of 

the four CARES Act prerequisites for a videoconference 

sentencing were satisfied: The Judicial Conference and the 

chief judge made the necessary findings, and there is no 

question that he validly consented to proceed by videoconference. He argues only that the judge incorrectly found that 

further delay in sentencing would harm the interests of 

justice. That error, he contends, requires reversal because 

Rule 43(a) mandates the defendant’s presence in the courtroom at sentencing. 

The government responds that Coffin waived this argument by failing to object to the judge’s CARES Act findings.
6 No. 20-2385 

We agree. “Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a 

known right.” United States v. Ranjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821 (7th 

Cir. 2017). A criminal defendant waives the right to contest 

the judge’s factual findings at sentencing when he expressly 

“states on the record that he has no objection” to the findings. United States v. Robinson, 964 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir. 

2020); see also United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443, 449 (7th Cir. 

2019) (explaining that the defendant waives appellate challenge to a supervised-release condition when he affirmatively tells the district judge that he has no objection). Waiver 

“extinguishes any error and precludes appellate review.”

United States v. Brodie, 507 F.3d 527, 530 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Here, the judge directly asked Coffin’s attorney if he had 

any objection to his CARES Act findings. Counsel said he 

did not. That’s a textbook waiver. The judge “expressly 

invited objections” to his factual findings, and Coffin’s 

attorney “expressly declined the invitation.” United States v. 

Lewis, 823 F.3d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir. 2016). Appellate review is 

therefore waived. 

Coffin resists the application of the normal rules of waiver by invoking Rule 43(a) and our decision in United States v. 

Bethea, 888 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2018). As we’ve noted, 

Rule 43(a) provides that the defendant in a felony case “must 

be present at ... the plea ... and sentencing.” We held in 

Bethea that this language is mandatory and does not permit 

the district court to conduct a videoconference plea hearing

by consent. 888 F.3d at 867. We also held that “a Rule 43(a) 

violation constitutes per se error.” Id.

But the CARES Act created an exception to the rule that 

the defendant must be physically present in the courtroom. 

Section 15002(b) of the Act specifically authorizes plea and
No. 20-2385 7 

sentencing hearings by videoconference if the defendant 

consents and the three other statutory prerequisites are met. 

Coffin now challenges the judge’s compliance with one of 

the CARES Act prerequisites—the requirement of casespecific “interests of justice” findings. That’s a claim of 

CARES Act error—not Rule 43(a) error—and Coffin waived 

any claim of CARES Act error by expressly declining the 

opportunity to object to the judge’s findings under the Act. 

If Coffin had any objections to the judge’s CARES Act

findings, he could and “should have brought them to the 

district court’s attention rather than waiting until appeal to 

complain for the first time.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d 

811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016). Because he waived any appellate 

challenge to those findings, the judgment is AFFIRMED.