United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 11, 2016

Decided March 3, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANDRE A. FORBES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 

South Bend Division.

No. 3:14CR026-001

Jon E. DeGuilio,

Judge.

O R D E R

Andre Forbes pleaded guilty to distributing a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), as well as possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and 

tampering with a witness, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). He was sentenced to a total of 216 

months’ imprisonment, within the guidelines range. As part of the parties’ plea 

agreement, the government dropped a charge of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a 

drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), which would have added a consecutive 

60-month term to his sentence. Although the plea agreement also includes an appeal 

waiver, Forbes filed a notice of appeal, and his appointed counsel now seeks to 

withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 15-1965 Page 2

744 (1967). Forbes opposes the motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Counsel has submitted a brief 

that explains the nature of the case and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind 

might be expected to involve. Because the analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, 

we limit our discussion to the issues identified in that brief and in Forbes’ response. 

See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 

551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel first considers whether Forbes could challenge the voluntariness of his 

guilty pleas. After consulting with his client, see United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 

(7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002), counsel 

concluded that Forbes “may” want to challenge his guilty pleas but lacks a nonfrivolous 

basis for an appellate claim. We agree. The transcript of the plea colloquy shows that the 

district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. 

See United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 688–89 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Akinsola, 

105 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Lovett, 844 F.2d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1988). 

The court advised Forbes of his constitutional rights, the charges against him, the 

maximum penalties, and the effect of his appeal waiver, and also found that the 

defendant’s pleas were voluntary and supported by an adequate factual basis. See FED. R.

CRIM. P. 11(b).

Forbes argues in his Rule 51(b) submission that he should be permitted to contest 

his guilty pleas because, he asserts, the government violated the parties’ plea agreement 

by introducing at sentencing evidence of uncharged drug dealing. But this argument 

would be frivolous because the parties did not enter any agreement about the drug 

quantity to be used in setting the base offense level and in calculating the guidelines 

imprisonment range. See United States v. Linder, 530 F.3d 556, 564–65 (7th Cir. 2008)

(noting that government cannot breach nonexistent term of plea agreement).

Counsel next correctly concludes that any challenge to Forbes’ sentence or the 

manner in which it was imposed would be frivolous because of the broad appeal waiver 

in Forbes’ plea agreement. Forbes waived “my right to appeal or contest my conviction 

and all components of my sentence or the manner in which my conviction or my 

sentence was determined or imposed, to any Court on any ground other than a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel.” Because an appeal waiver stands or falls with a guilty 

plea, see United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732, 741 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Zitt, 

714 F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 

2011), we must enforce Forbes’ waiver. No exception to the appeal waiver is suggested 

by the record in this case. See Dowell v. United States, 694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2012);
No. 15-1965 Page 3

United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the remaining 

contentions about his sentence that Forbes makes in his Rule 51(b) submission would all 

be frivolous because the appeal waiver precludes them.

Thus, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.