United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 11, 2014

Decided April 11, 2014

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 13‐3483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

WALI ALI,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 110‐1

Ronald A. Guzmán,

Judge.

O R D E R

Wali Ali pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a),

and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 121 months’ imprisonment on each

bank robbery count, running concurrently, and 84 months’ imprisonment on the

firearm charge, running consecutively to the other counts. Counsel has submitted a

brief that is adequate on its face—meaning that it explains the nature of the case and

fully and intelligently discusses the issues that the type of case might be expected to

involve—and therefore we limit our review to the challenges to the district courtʹs

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 13‐3483 Page 2

rulings that counsel has identified as possibly having some merit plus any additional

challenges to rulings that the defendant, disagreeing with counsel, believes have merit.

See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Wagner, 103

F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

In 2010 Ali and two other men, armed with firearms and wearing bullet‐proof

vests, robbed a TCF Bank in Palos Heights, Illinois. While his co‐conspirators forced

employees to remain in the lobby, Ali collected more than $100,000 from the bank’s

vault. After police apprehended Ali, he confessed to committing four other bank

robberies between 2006 and 2010.

He pleaded guilty to one bank‐robbery count and one § 924(c)(1)(A) firearm

count related to the 2010 robbery, and another bank robbery count related to a 2007

robbery that also involved the use of guns. At sentencing the district court calculated a

guidelines range of 97 to 121 months for the bank robbery counts and sentenced Ali to

concurrent 121‐month sentences. The court sentenced him to the 84‐month statutory

minimum sentence on the firearm count, to run consecutively to his bank‐robbery

sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

In his motion to withdraw, counsel explains that Ali has not indicated whether

he wants to challenge his guilty plea but counsel properly concludes that any challenge

to the plea would be frivolous. The transcript of the plea colloquy shows that the district

court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See United

States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). The court confirmed the factual basis

for the plea, ensured that Ali’s plea was voluntary, and explained the maximum and

minimum penalties, the trial rights Ali would waive by pleading guilty, the role of the

sentencing guidelines, and the judge’s discretion in applying them. See FED. R. CRIM. P.

11(b). Although the court failed to discuss the forfeiture provision contained in the plea

agreement, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(J), this oversight is harmless because the district

court has not ordered a forfeiture. The government has since moved the district court

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct the judgment to reflect the

forfeiture, but even if the court grants the government’s request and orders forfeiture,

the omission in the plea colloquy is harmless error because it does not affect Ali’s

substantial rights. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(h). The plea agreement explicitly mentioned

the forfeiture, and Ali’s counsel confirmed at the plea hearing that he had reviewed the

plea agreement with Ali and that Ali understood the terms and conditions of the

agreement.
No. 13‐3483 Page 3

Counsel next considers whether Ali could challenge his sentence but correctly

concludes that any argument would be frivolous. In his plea agreement Ali agreed to

the upward adjustments for use of a firearm in the 2007 robbery, see U.S.S.G.

§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(B), the monetary loss to financial institutions attributed to each robbery,

see id. § 2B3.1(b)(1), (b)(7), and the use of body armor in the 2010 robbery, see id.

§ 3B1.5(2)(B). Ali did not object to the court’s application of the sentencing guidelines,

and counsel is unable to identify any potential errors in the court’s calculations. His

within‐guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Cheek, 740 F.3d

440, 455 (7th Cir. 2013). The court acknowledged a factor in mitigation pressed by

Ali—his advanced age (67 at the time of sentencing)—but concluded that a 121‐month

imprisonment term was necessary to reflect the serious nature of Ali’s bank‐robbery

offenses, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), punish Ali, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(A), deter him from

committing future offenses, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(B), and protect the public from future

criminal conduct, see id. § 3553(a)(2)(C).

In his Rule 51(b) response, Ali seems to identify himself as a sovereign citizen

and asserts that he is immune from prosecution. But this argument would be frivolous

to raise on appeal because we have repeatedly rejected theories that a defendant is

sovereign and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. See United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d

753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases). Ali also implies in his Rule 51(b) response that

his charging document is inadequate because it is not supported by sworn affidavits.

This argument too would be frivolous because Ali waived his right to a formal

indictment during the plea colloquy. Moreover, “[a]ll non jurisdictional issues not

specifically preserved in the conditional plea agreement are waived.” See United States v.

Kingcade, 562 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2009). An assertion that an indictment is not

supported by sufficient evidence does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, see United

States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630–32 (2002), and so Ali’s argument is waived.

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