United States of America v. Emmanuel James

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 15, 2024
Decided April 16, 2024
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2505
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL JAMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 20-CR-89-2-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Emmanuel James pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to
distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and the district court
sentenced him to 60 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Although his
plea agreement contained a broad appellate waiver, James filed a notice of appeal. His
appointed lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the
appeal and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve.
Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2505 Page 2
counsel discusses, see United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014), as well as the
issues raised by James in his response to counsel’s motion, see C IR . R. 51(b).
In May 2020, James was a passenger of a vehicle driven by Antonio Holt, the
target of a drug-trafficking investigation. After law enforcement officers stopped the
vehicle, they searched it and found $30,000 in cash and two handguns. Law
enforcement officers later obtained a warrant to search James’s home, and found
300 grams of marijuana, 50 grams of crystal methamphetamine, 280 grams of heroin,
180 oxycodone pills, and 12 firearms.
James was charged with two counts: one for possession with intent to distribute
controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C), and the other
for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He moved to suppress the evidence from the search of his home. The
district court denied the motion, ruling that although the officers did not have probable
cause to search James’s home, the officers relied in good faith on a facially valid warrant
and thus the exclusionary rule did not apply.
James later pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute
controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). In the written agreement,
James waived “any claims he may have raised in any pretrial motion.” The agreement
also contained a broad appellate waiver in which James agreed to waive his right to
appeal his conviction and sentence.
At sentencing, the district court heard the parties’ respective arguments. The
government sought a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment based on the seriousness of
James’s offense. James sought a sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment based on the
mitigating factors, such as his close family relationships and substance abuse problems
that he experienced since the death of his brother. After considering the mitigating and
aggravating factors, the court sentenced James to 60 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’
supervised release.
Counsel begins by confirming that James wishes to withdraw his guilty 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). She explores whether there is a nonfrivolous basis to
do so under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. James, in his Rule 51(b)
response, insists that his plea agreement is invalid because he was unaware that he
waived his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. But we agree with

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2505 Page 3
counsel that any challenge to the plea would be frivolous. James did not move to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, so our review would be for plain error.
United States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013). And a review of the
plea-colloquy transcript reflects that the court substantially complied with Rule 11.
Under oath, James confirmed that he understood the charge (including maximum
possible penalties), the trial rights he was giving up, and how his sentence would be
determined; he also confirmed that, with counsel, he reviewed the plea agreement,
which expressly stated that he waived “any claims he may have raised in any pretrial
motions.” Because James’s statements under oath are presumed true, see United States v.
Smith, 989 F.3d 575, 582 (7th Cir. 2021), it would be frivolous to argue that accepting the
plea was plain error.
Next, counsel addresses whether James could challenge his sentence, and
correctly concludes that his appeal waiver precludes such a challenge. An appeal
waiver “stands or falls with the underlying agreement and plea.” United States v. Nulf,
978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). When an appeal wavier is present, the only potential
issue is whether a narrow and rare exception to the waiver applies, see United States v.
Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016), and we agree with counsel that it would be
frivolous for James to argue that any exception applies here. As counsel notes, neither
James’s 5-year term of imprisonment nor his 3-year term of supervised release exceeds
the statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). And nothing in the record suggests
that the district court considered any constitutionally impermissible factors.
See Campbell, 813 F.3d at 1018.
Finally, James contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because he
misinformed him about the rights he was waiving on appeal. But such a claim is best
reserved for a collateral attack, when a more complete record can be developed.
See United States v. Cates, 950 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2020).
Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --