*

  After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 3, 2009 *

Decided May 14, 2009

Before

           FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

  TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge       

           DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN GORDON,

      Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06 CR 360 

John F. Grady, Judge.

ORDER

Jonathan Gordon was sentenced to a total of 228 months in prison and a five‐year

term of supervised release after, without a plea agreement, he entered a guilty plea to four

of the five charges against him:  conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371); bank robbery (18 U.S.C. §

2113(a); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. §

924(c)(1)(A)); and bank robbery with an assault with a dangerous weapon (18 U.S.C. §§

2113(a) and 2113(d)).  He appeals, and his court‐appointed attorney has filed a motion to

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2012 Page 2

withdraw because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous issues to pursue.  See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Gordon has not accepted our invitation to respond to the

motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), so we confine our review to the potential issues outlined in

counsel’s Anders brief.

Gordon entered an unconditional, knowing, and voluntary plea of guilty.  He did

not move to withdraw his plea in the district court.  Under those circumstances, any

challenge to his guilty plea would be reviewed for plain error.  United States v. Driver, 242

F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2001).  Because an unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional

defects, United States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir. 1993), the only potential issue would

be whether the plea was enforceable as knowing and voluntary.  However, we have said

that when a defendant does not move to withdraw his plea in the district court, counsel

need not address the voluntariness of the plea in an Anders brief if, after being advised of

the risks involved in the withdrawal of the plea, the defendant indicates that he does not

wish to challenge the plea on appeal.  United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel indicated he has consulted with Gordon, who said he did not wish to challenge the

plea.  In this situation, any challenge to the plea would be frivolous.

Potentially, Gordon’s sentence could be challenged if it was imposed in violation of

law, was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, was a departure from the applicable guideline range, or was otherwise

unreasonable.  Gordon’s  sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum.  The sentencing

guidelines were not erroneously applied.  Furthermore, given the nature of the crime, the

sentence was reasonable.  There is no nonfrivolous issue as to Gordon’s sentence.

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