United States of America v. Traize Wash

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 3, 2023
Decided February 3, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRAIZE WASH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:20CR00303-001
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Traize Wash pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and carrying a firearm during a
drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced him to a 120-
month prison term on Count 1 and a consecutive 60-month term on Count 2, as well as
5 years of supervised release. Although his plea agreement contains a broad appellate
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-1275 Page 2
waiver, Wash filed a notice of appeal. 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 explains the nature of the case and raises potential issues that an appeal
like this would be expected to involve. Because her analysis appears thorough, and
Wash has not responded to counsel’s motion, see C IR . R. 51(b), we limit our review to
the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir.
2014).
Police officers found Wash unconscious in a running vehicle that was parked in
the center of a residential road in Indianapolis, Indiana. One of the officers observed in
plain view a plastic bag appearing to contain methamphetamine. The officers searched
the vehicle and found multiple packages containing methamphetamine pills, two
loaded firearms, over $12,000 in U.S. currency, and a digital scale containing
methamphetamine residue.
Wash was charged in a federal indictment with three counts: possessing with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine,
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded
guilty to the first two counts under a written plea agreement in which he “expressly
waive[d] [his] right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed in [his] case on any
ground.” The government in turn agreed to dismiss the third count. The parties agreed
that an appropriate sentence would be 180 months in prison—the statutory minimum
of 120 months on Count 1, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), followed by the statutory minimum
of 60 months on Count 2, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The parties also agreed that the
court would determine the length of any supervised-release term.
At a joint change-of-plea and sentencing hearing, the district court accepted
Wash’s plea and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 120 months on Count 1
and 60 months on Count 2, and 5 years of supervised release.
Counsel first informs us that Wash wishes to challenge his guilty plea, see United
States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012), but she rightly concludes that this
challenge would be frivolous. Because Wash did not move to withdraw his plea in the
district court, we would review only for plain error, United States v. Davenport, 719 F.3d
616, 618 (7th Cir. 2013), and the record reflects no such error here. The court conducted
a plea colloquy that complied with Rule 11, and Wash’s sworn statements at the
colloquy are presumed true. See United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581, 584 (7th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1275 Page 3
The court determined that Wash was voluntarily changing his plea, and that the plea
did not result from threats, promises, or force. The court also confirmed that Wash
understood the charges, the rights he was waiving (including the right to appeal), the
maximum penalties he faced, and the role of the Sentencing Guidelines. See F ED. R.
C RIM . P. 11(b)(1). And the court ensured that the factual basis for the plea was adequate.
See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(2)–(3).
Counsel next considers whether Wash could appeal his sentence and correctly
concludes that this challenge would be precluded by his broad appeal waiver. An
appeal waiver “stands or falls with the underlying agreement and plea,” United States v.
Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020), and Wash lacks any sound basis to challenge his
plea. Counsel also appropriately rejects any argument that an exception to the appeal
waiver could apply: Wash’s 180-month sentence is less than the applicable statutory
maximum sentence of life (for Count 1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and the court did not
consider any constitutionally impermissible factor at sentencing. See Nulf, 978 F.3d at
506.
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --