United States of America v. John Gierek

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 20, 2026
Decided May 20, 2026
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN GIEREK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
No. 1:24CR12-001
Holly A. Brady,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
John Gierek pleaded guilty to two counts of using interstate commerce facilities
in the commission of murder-for-hire. He was sentenced to two terms of 110 months’
imprisonment to be served consecutively, with two years’ supervised release. Despite a
broad appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Gierek filed a notice of appeal. His
appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of
the case and addresses potential issues that an appeal of this kind might involve.
Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough and Gierek did not respond to the motion,
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1329 Page 2
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.
In 2024 Gierek solicited another person to kidnap his soon-to-be ex-wife and her
friend. He also directed the person to kill any family members present for the
kidnapping, including his ex-wife’s mother, grandmother, and minor son, as well as the
friend’s husband. In exchange, Gierek offered four “eight balls” (slang for an eighth of
an ounce of cocaine) and forgave $2000 in debt. After the person informed state police
and the FBI, Gierek was arrested and indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) on four counts
of using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire.
Gierek agreed with the government to plead guilty to two of the four counts. In
the plea agreement, Gierek waived his right “to appeal or to contest my conviction and
all components of my sentence” on any ground other than ineffective assistance of
counsel. In return, the government agreed to dismiss the remaining two counts and
recommend that Gierek receive the maximum available sentence reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. Gierek was later sentenced to a total of 220 months’
imprisonment—110 months for each count—with two years’ supervised release.
Counsel tells us that Gierek wishes to challenge his guilty plea, but we agree
with counsel that any such challenge would be frivolous. The transcript of the plea
colloquy shows that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and ensured that the plea was
voluntary and knowing. See United States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013).
Under oath, Gierek confirmed that he understood the charge against him, the penalties
he faced (up to ten years’ imprisonment on each count, up to three years’ supervised
release, and possible fines and restitution), and the trial and appellate rights he was
waiving by pleading guilty. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1), (2).
Counsel next considers whether Gierek could challenge his sentence and
correctly determines that any challenge would be precluded by the appeal waiver in his
plea agreement. An appeal waiver “stands or falls” with the underlying plea.
United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). Because Gierek’s guilty plea was
valid, the appeal waiver is enforceable. Additionally, no exception to the appeal waiver
could apply because neither Gierek’s prison sentence nor his term of supervised release
exceeds the statutory maximums, and nothing in the record suggests that the district
court considered any constitutionally impermissible factors. See id. And although
Gierek’s appeal waiver permits him to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1329 Page 3
such claims are best saved for collateral review, at which stage the record can be more
fully developed. See United States v. Cates, 950 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2020)
(citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003)).
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --