United States of America v. Anthony L. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 4, 2023
Decided October 5, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2939
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY L. THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:21CR00119-001
Jane Magnus-Stinson,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anthony Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child
and attempted exploitation of a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district judge
sentenced him to 360 months in prison and ten years of supervised release, and she
ordered that he pay $10,000 in restitution and a $100 special assessment.
Though his plea agreement contains a broad appeal waiver, Thomas filed a
notice of appeal. His counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and moves to
withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Thomas has not accepted our
invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. See 7TH C IR . R. 51(b). Because counsel’s
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2939 Page 2
analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects he
discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014).
Counsel informs us that Thomas does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, so
counsel 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 does, however, consider whether Thomas can raise any
nonfrivolous challenges to his sentence. He rightly concludes that Thomas cannot.
Thomas’s plea agreement waives his right to “appeal the conviction and sentence
imposed in this case on any ground,” including the length and conditions of his
supervised release and the amount of his fine. An appeal waiver stands or falls with the
guilty plea, see, e.g., United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020), and Thomas
chose not to challenge his plea. Additionally, no exception to the appeal waiver would
apply because his prison sentence and supervised-release term do not exceed the
statutory maximums, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(e), 3583(k), and nothing in the record
suggests that the judge considered any constitutionally impermissible factors,
see United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016). He is thus bound by the
appeal waiver.
Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --