United States of America v. Valentino Colic

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 10, 2026
Decided February 20, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VALENTINO COLIC,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:23-CR-30130-SMY-2
Staci M. Yandle,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
After Valentino Colic pleaded guilty to charges of wire fraud and identity theft,
he was sentenced to 145 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay over $1 million in
restitution. He appeals, but his appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous
and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel,
however, overlooks a potential challenge to the voluntariness of the plea based on the
district court’s failure to advise Colic—a lawful permanent resident originally from
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1616 Page 2
Bosnia—of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction. Because counsel’s
brief fails to address this omission, we deny the motion.
For nearly five years, Colic ran a scheme in southern Illinois with three
codefendants to purchase vehicles with fake checks and resell them at a profit. During
these transactions, Colic often assumed the identities of past victims by using their
Facebook profiles, driver’s licenses, and signatures.
In 2023, a grand jury charged Colic with one count of conspiracy to commit wire
fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349; two counts of wire fraud, id. § 1343; two counts of interstate
transportation of property taken by fraud, id. § 2314; and six counts of aggravated
identity theft, id. § 1028A. Colic pleaded guilty to all eleven counts and waived his right
to appeal his conviction or any aspect of his sentence unless the sentence exceeded the
guidelines range. The district court accepted the plea after finding that it was knowing
and voluntary and supported by an adequate factual basis.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the presentence
investigation report and imposed a top-of-the-guidelines sentence of 145 months’
imprisonment and 4 years’ supervised release.
On appeal, counsel considers whether Colic could plausibly challenge the
voluntariness of his plea. Because Colic did not move to withdraw his plea in the
district court, our review would be limited to plain error. United States v. Larry, 104 F.4th
1020, 1022 (7th Cir. 2024). Counsel identifies four omissions in the plea colloquy and
correctly concludes that they would be deemed harmless. The district court did not
inform Colic that (1) he had the right to plead not guilty and to persist in that plea;
(2) he had the right to cross-examine witnesses and to testify and present evidence at
trial; (3) by pleading guilty he was waiving those trial rights; or (4) the court was
required to impose restitution. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(B), (E), (F), (K). But we would
consider these omissions to be harmless because the admonishments were included in
his plea agreement. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(h); United States v. Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 771
(7th Cir. 2001).
Counsel does not, however, consider the significance of the district court’s failure
to advise Colic of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction. See F ED. R.
C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(O); United States v. Zacahua, 940 F.3d 342, 345 (7th Cir. 2019). Unlike the
other omissions in the colloquy, Colic’s plea agreement did not refer to the potential
immigration consequences. Because he is not a citizen, Colic’s guilty plea could put him
at risk of removal, which “is an integral part—indeed, sometimes the most important

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1616 Page 3
part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty.”
Zacahua, 940 F.3d at 345 (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 364 (2010)). Given our
plain-error review, however, Colic may obtain relief only if he shows a reasonable
probability that he would not have entered the plea but for the error. See id. (citing
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004)).
For now, we offer no view on whether such an argument would be nonfrivolous.
We decide only that counsel has overlooked an error “that might arguably support the
appeal.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is therefore DENIED,
and counsel is ORDERED to file, within 60 days, either a supplemental Anders brief
discussing the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) omission or a brief on the merits if counsel concludes
that the issue is nonfrivolous.

-- 3 of 3 --