United States of America v. Jeffrey Groves

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 28, 2026
Decided April 30, 2026
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2126
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY GROVES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:23CR00035-001
Sarah Evans Barker,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jeffrey Groves pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine,
see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment. Groves
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’s brief adequately
explains the nature of the case and discusses potential issues that an appeal of this kind
might be expected to involve. Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough, and Groves
did not respond to the motion, see C IR . R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects that
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2126 Page 2
counsel discusses. United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). We grant the
motion and dismiss the appeal.
Groves was a passenger in a car driven by Zakahia Roney, the target of a drug-
trafficking investigation in 2023. After officers stopped the car, they searched it and
found a package containing a large quantity of methamphetamine. They also searched
Groves’s person and found two cell phones and $1,100 cash.
Groves was charged with two counts: conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more
of methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. After Groves’s motion
to suppress the evidence was denied, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500
grams or more of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. The plea agreement
included a broad waiver of Groves’s right to appeal his conviction or sentence “on any
ground” or to appeal the length and conditions of his supervised release. He also
agreed not to collaterally attack the judgment, except for limited claims based on
ineffective assistance of counsel, retroactive changes to the Sentencing Guidelines, or
extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release as set forth in U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13.
At sentencing, the judge heard the parties’ respective arguments. The
government sought a sentence in the middle of the guidelines range, which was 188 to
235 months, based on the seriousness of Groves’s offense. Groves sought a below-
guidelines sentence based on the impurity of the methamphetamine and his lesser role
in the conspiracy relative to a codefendant. After considering the mitigating and
aggravating factors, the judge sentenced Groves to 188 months’ imprisonment and 5
years’ supervised release.
Counsel begins by confirming that Groves wishes to withdraw his guilty plea
and therefore considers whether Groves could raise a nonfrivolous argument that his
plea was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Larry, 104 F.4th 1020, 1022
(7th Cir. 2024). We agree with counsel that this challenge would be frivolous. Groves
did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court, so our review would be limited
to plain error. Id. Counsel notes that the judge did not perfectly comply with Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For example, the judge did not discuss certain
details like the court’s authority to impose restitution, see F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(K).
But counsel correctly concludes that any omissions were inconsequential because the
admonishments were included in his plea agreement. See id. 11(h); United States v.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2126 Page 3
Brown, 973 F.3d 667, 717 (7th Cir. 2020). We are thus satisfied that Groves could not
meet the plain error standard.
Counsel also considers whether Groves could challenge his sentence but rightly
concludes that the appeal waiver precludes this 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). Because Groves’s guilty plea was valid, his appellate waiver is
enforceable. And no exception to the waiver applies because, as counsel notes, Groves’s
188-month sentence was below the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and
the judge did not rely on any constitutionally impermissible factors, see United States v.
Edwards, 145 F.4th 774, 780 (7th Cir. 2025).
Lastly, counsel considers arguing that the district judge should have recused
herself based on a personal relationship with the grandfather of Groves’s codefendant,
having worked in the same building as him 40 years earlier. But counsel properly
declines making this argument. Although a judge must disqualify herself in any
proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a), a tenuous relationship from decades-old employment does not suggest bias.
See Nicholson v. City of Peoria, 860 F.3d 520, 525 (7th Cir. 2017).
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --