Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio ORTUNO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-28
Citations: 218 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 06-2728
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio ORTUNO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio ORTUNO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-2728.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2007.
Decided Feb. 28, 2007.
Matthew P. Brookman, Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Claudio Ortuno, Loretto, PA, pro se.
Gareth G. Morris, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Claudio Ortuno had sold methamphetamine to an undercover police officer in southern Indiana on three prior occasions, and when he arrived to complete a fourth sale, police officers arrested him. Ortuno pleaded guilty to distributing more than five grams of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viii). The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 135 months' imprisonment and four years' supervised release. As part of his written plea agreement, Ortuno expressly waived his right to appeal the conviction and sentence "for any reason," if the sentence imposed was within the guidelines range. Despite the waiver, however Ortuno filed a pro se notice of appeal. His appointed counsel now moves to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), because he is unable to discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. Counsel's supporting brief is facially adequate, and Ortuno has not responded to counsel's motion, see Cir. R. 51(b), so we limit our review of the record to the potential issues counsel has identified. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002).
Counsel questions whether Ortuno might attack the validity of the appeal waiver. We have repeatedly held that waivers of appeal are valid and binding, see, e.g., United States v. Mason, 343 F.3d 893, 893-94 (7th Cir.2003), and that a waiver of appeal stands or falls with the rest of the plea bargain, see United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir.2002). Counsel gives no indication that Ortuno wants to have his guilty plea set aside and risk losing the benefits conferred by his plea agreement, and thus we agree with counsel that any challenge to the validity of the appeal waiver would be frivolous. We also agree with counsel that, given the valid appeal waiver, all other arguments would be frivolous as well. See United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 607-08 (7th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.