Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie J. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-25
Citations: 502 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 12-3256
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie J. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie J. EPPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-3256.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2013.
Decided March 25, 2013.
Jonathan H. Koenig, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jessie J. Epps, Beaver, WV, pro se.
Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Jessie Epps pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a heroin trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). In his plea agreement Epps waived the right to appeal his sentence. The district court sentenced him to the 48-month statutory maximum. See id. § 843(d)(1). Epps filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer believes that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Epps has not responded to counsel's motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). We confine our review to counsel's facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).
Epps has told counsel not to contest his guilty plea, and so counsel properly forgoes discussing the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir.2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir.2002).
Counsel does consider whether Epps could argue that the district court (1) erred in calculating the proper guidelines range or (2) imposed an unreasonable sentence. But Epps's broad waiver of his right to appeal makes this case frivolous. Because an appeal waiver stands or falls with a guilty plea, see United States v. Kilcrease, 665 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir.2012); United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir.2011), Epps's appeal waiver must be enforced. Moreover, Epps's 48-month sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 843(d)(1), and the court did not rely on any constitutionally impermissible factor when it imposed Epps's sentence. See Dowell v. United States, 694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir.2012).
The motion to withdraw is Granted, and the appeal is Dismissed.