*

 The defendant’s name is identified in various documents in the record as

both Gary E. Freeman, Sr. and Gary E. Freemon, Sr. Because he and his counsel

use the former spelling, we do so as well. 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 28, 2005

Decided September 28, 2005

Before

 Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 05-2238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States

District

Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Central District of Illinois

v.

No. 04-30082-001

GARY E. FREEMAN, SR.,*

Defendant-Appellant. Richard Mills,

Judge.

O R D E R

Gary Freeman pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing crack and to

possessing a firearm after conviction, and was sentenced to a 235-month term of

imprisonment. The plea agreement includes a waiver of Freeman’s right to appeal

his sentence with limited exceptions. Freeman’s counsel now seeks to withdraw

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot discern a

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-2238 Page 2

nonfrivolous basis for appeal. Freeman has not responded to our notice under

Circuit Rule 51(b). We therefore limit our review to the potential issues raised by

counsel. See United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997).

Counsel identifies five potential issues for appeal. First, counsel considers

arguing that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule 11 of Criminal

Procedure. Because counsel informs us that Freeman does not wish to withdraw his

guilty plea, counsel was not required to explore the adequacy of the Rule 11 colloquy. 

See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel also considers whether to challenge any aspect of his sentence not

specifically reserved in the appeal waiver. However, the appeal waiver stands or

falls with the plea agreement that Freeman does not wish to challenge, and counsel

therefore properly concludes that any arguments not reserved in the appeal waiver

would be frivolous. See, e.g., United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir.

2002). 

Counsel next contemplates arguing that the 235-month sentence was

unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 765 (2005), because:

(1) the disparity in sentencing of cocaine and crack offenses is grossly

disproportional, or (2) Freeman’s serious medical condition may shorten his life

expectancy. This argument, however, is foreclosed by the appeal waiver. It is true

that in his appeal waiver Freeman expressly reserved the right to appeal any ruling

that increased his sentence where the standard of proof was less than beyond a

reasonable doubt. But no such ruling was made. The judge simply rejected counsel’s

arguments that either the disparity between crack and cocaine or Freeman’s medical

condition warranted a sentence below the guideline range. Even if the appeal

waiver allowed these arguments, Freeman’s sentence was within the guideline

range, and any sentence within the guideline range is presumptively reasonable. 

See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Counsel next contemplates challenging the district court’s acceptance of the

parties’ stipulation that the drug weight for which Freeman would be accountable

“should be found to be the equivalent of slightly less than 3,000 kilograms.” As

counsel correctly observes, facts stipulated to as part of a plea agreement are

conclusively admitted. See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir.

2005).

Finally, counsel considers arguing that the felon-in-possession statute under

which Freeman was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), is unconstitutional. He asks

whether § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause because it

criminalizes more than mere economic activity. Freeman did not challenge the

constitutionality of this statute in the district court, however, so we review it only for

plain error. United States v. Williams, 410 F.3d 397, 400 (7th Cir. 2005). We have
No. 05-2238 Page 3

repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to § 922(g), and Freeman has not

offered any reason why we would depart from our previous holdings. See, e.g., id.

Accordingly, any argument that it was plain error to prosecute him under § 922(g)

would be frivolous. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.