United States of America v. Diego Alejandro Montes- Roldan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 4, 2025
Decided April 4, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DIEGO ALEJANDRO MONTES-
ROLDAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 4:21-CR-40071-JPG-1
J. Phil Gilbert,
Judge.
O R D E R
Diego Montes-Roldan pleaded guilty to travel with intent to engage in illicit
sexual conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment.
Despite a broad appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Montes-Roldan filed a notice of
appeal. His appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and seeks to withdraw
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the
case and addresses potential issues that an appeal of this kind would typically involve.
Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough and Montes-Roldan did not respond to the
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2178 Page 2
motion, see C IR . R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects identified in the brief.
See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). We grant the motion and
dismiss the appeal.
Counsel informs us that Montes-Roldan does not wish to challenge his guilty
plea, so he properly refrains from discussing 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 believes that Montes-Roldan could argue that the district judge
miscalculated the guidelines range, insufficiently considered the sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and inadequately justified the above-guidelines sentence. But
counsel rightly concludes that the appeal waiver would foreclose any of these
challenges. In his plea agreement, Montes-Roldan waived his right “to seek
modification of, or contest any aspect of, the conviction or sentence in any type of
proceeding.” An appellate waiver stands or falls with the underlying plea agreement,
see, e.g., United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020), and Montes-Roldan does
not want to challenge his plea. Additionally, as counsel points out, no exception to the
appeal waiver could apply. Montes-Roldan’s sentence does not exceed the statutory
maximum of 30 years, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), and, as the transcript shows, the court did
not consider any constitutionally impermissible factors at sentencing. See Nulf, 978 F.3d
at 506.
Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --