United States of America v. Ogheneofejiro G. Uzokpa

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 16, 2026
Decided June 17, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OGHENEOFEJIRO G. UZOKPA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 4:23-CR-40005-JPG-1
J. Phil Gilbert,
Judge.
O R D E R
Ogheneofejiro Uzokpa pleaded guilty to wire fraud and conspiracy to commit
wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment.
Despite a broad appeal waiver in his plea agreement, he 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, 744 (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 Uzokpa did not respond to
the motion, see CIR . R. 51(b), we limit our review to the subjects identified in the brief.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1062 Page 2
See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). We grant the motion and
dismiss the appeal.
Uzokpa is a citizen of Nigeria. While living there between March 2020 and
February 2021, he conspired to defraud people within the United States, many of them
elderly. Using fictitious personas, he and his cohorts formed false romantic
relationships with their victims, whom they induced to transfer money. The
conspirators defrauded the victims of over $550,000.
In 2023, Uzokpa received lawful permanent resident status in the United States.
That year, he traveled here and was arrested upon entry for fraud. He was indicted for
four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire
fraud, id. § 1349.
Uzokpa pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count and one count of wire fraud. The
written plea agreement contained a broad appellate waiver, in which Uzokpa waived
his “right to seek modification of, or contest any aspect of, the conviction or sentence in
any type of proceeding.”
The probation office prepared a presentence investigation report that assessed
Uzokpa’s guidelines range at 78 to 97 months (based on a total offense level of 28 and a
criminal history category of I). These recommendations were adopted by the district
court, which sentenced Uzokpa to 84 months’ imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised
release. The court also required him to pay $329,470 in restitution.
In her brief, counsel first assures us of our appellate jurisdiction. Even though
Uzokpa filed his notice of appeal after his 14-day deadline, see F ED. R. A PP . P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i), this deadline is not jurisdictional for criminal appeals, United States v. Neff,
598 F.3d 320, 323 (7th Cir. 2010), and the government has not stood on its right to
enforce the deadline, United States v. Cargo, 134 F.4th 974, 976 (7th Cir. 2025).
Counsel next informs us that Uzokpa wishes to withdraw his plea, see United
States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012), so she asks whether Uzokpa has a
plausible basis to do so. We agree with counsel that Uzokpa does not. Any claim of
innocence would be frivolous because Uzokpa admitted to the elements of his offenses
in conjunction with his guilty plea. See United States v. Paulette, 858 F.3d 1055, 1059 (7th
Cir. 2017). Moreover, Uzokpa cannot raise a nonfrivolous challenge to the voluntariness
of his plea. The district court substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure during the change-of-plea hearing. Although the court did not

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1062 Page 3
mention two of the rights that Uzokpa waived—his rights to compel the presence of
witnesses and to cross-examine adverse witnesses at trial, see F ED. R. C RIM . P.
11(b)(1)(E)—we agree with counsel that these omissions were harmless because the plea
agreement informed Uzokpa that he was waiving those rights. See United States v.
Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 2001).
Counsel also considers whether Uzokpa could plausibly challenge his sentence,
given that he waived his “right to seek modification of, or contest any aspect of, the
conviction or sentence in any type of proceeding.” But because an appeal waiver
“stands or falls” with the underlying guilty plea, United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506
(7th Cir. 2020), we agree with counsel that the waiver is enforceable. No exception to the
enforceability of the waiver could apply—Uzokpa’s 84-month sentence does not exceed
the statutory maximum, and the court did not consider any constitutionally
impermissible factors at sentencing, see United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th
Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Counsel informs us that Uzokpa wishes specifically to
challenge the imposition of restitution. But we agree with counsel that this, too, would
be frivolous because the restitution is part of his sentence. See United States v. Perillo, 897
F.3d 878, 883 (7th Cir. 2018).
Finally, counsel considers whether Uzokpa could raise a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, but she correctly recognizes that such claims are best raised on
collateral review, where the record could be more fully developed. See Massaro v. United
States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003).
Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --