United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 20, 2021 

Decided October 20, 2021 

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1442 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ZEFERINO CELSO MORALES 

AURELIA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Illinois. 

No. 4:20-CR-40020-JPG-1 

J. Phil Gilbert, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

Zeferino Celso Morales Aurelia pleaded guilty to attempting to entice a minor to 

engage in sexual activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and was sentenced to the mandatory 

minimum of 120 months in prison. He appeals, but counsel asserts that the appeal is 

frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With the 

assistance of a fellow prisoner, Morales Aurelia opposes the motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 21-1442 Page 2 

Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and addresses potential issues that an 

appeal of this kind might involve. Because their analysis appears thorough, we limit our 

review to the issues that she and Morales Aurelia discuss. See United States v. Bey, 

748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). 

Counsel begins by evaluating the validity of the plea but does not discuss 

whether she consulted Morales Aurelia about the risks of challenging his plea. See 

United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). The omission is harmless, 

however, because the record shows, and counsel correctly concludes, that any challenge 

to his plea would be frivolous. Id. Morales Aurelia did not move to withdraw his plea in

the district court, so we would review the district court’s acceptance of it for plain error. 

United States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013). No arguable plain error 

occurred here. Following Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the 

district court explained the nature of the charge, informed Morales Aurelia of potential 

penalties (including immigration consequences), determined the factual basis for his 

plea, and confirmed that his decision was knowing and voluntary. The court did so by

providing Morales Aurelia, who comes from a Mixteco-speaking community in Mexico, 

with a Spanish-language interpreter. During the plea colloquy, Morales Aurelia 

confirmed that he understood the proceedings. Although he now says that he

sometimes had to strain to understand the interpreter’s Spanish, Morales Aurelia does 

not argue that he was unable to follow the proceedings. Thus, any challenge that the 

plea was not knowing and voluntary would be frivolous. 

Counsel next considers, and correctly rejects, a potential challenge to the

substantive reasonableness of the 120-month prison sentence. Counsel does not state 

whether she discussed with Morales Aurelia the risks of such a challenge. See United 

States v. Caviedes-Zuniga, 948 F.3d 854, 856 (7th Cir. 2020). But again, any challenge 

would be pointless. Morales Aurelia did not object to the presentence investigation 

report, or the court’s adoption of its recommended Guideline range of 120 months to 

life in prison. More importantly, the conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence 

of 120 months in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Thus, “[h]is sentence could not be lower if 

he were resentenced.” United States v. Melvin, 948 F.3d 848, 854 (7th Cir. 2020). 

Finally, both counsel and Morales Aurelia consider raising the issue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel on direct appeal. But an ineffective-assistance claim, which 

generally requires evidence outside of the record, is better suited to a collateral attack 

rather than a direct appeal. United States v. Cates, 950 F.3d 453, 456–57 (7th Cir. 2020). 

Counsel also represented Morales Aurelia in the district court and would be ill-
No. 21-1442 Page 3 

positioned to argue that her own performance was deficient. See United States v. Rezin, 

322 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2003). 

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