United States of America v. GARY HATCHER, JR., a/k/a SMALLS

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 11, 2023
Decided July 13, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GARY HATCHER, JR., a/k/a SMALLS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:20-CR-00171-003
James R. Sweeney II,
Judge.
O R D E R
Gary Hatcher, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams
or more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to
250 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Although his plea agreement
contained a broad appeal waiver, Hatcher filed a notice of appeal. His 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 appeal and addresses issues
that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Hatcher did not respond to
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2287 Page 2
counsel’s motion. See C IR . R. 51(b). Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough, we
focus on the subjects that he discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir.
2014).
Counsel first informs us that Hatcher wishes to challenge his guilty plea,
see United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012), but correctly concludes that
any challenge would be frivolous. The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that the
district judge substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. The judge ensured that Hatcher understood the charges, the trial and appeal
rights that he was waiving, and the statutory minimum and maximum penalties.
See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1). And the judge confirmed that Hatcher was pleading guilty
voluntarily and that his plea was supported by an adequate factual basis. See id.
11(b)(2)–(3).
Counsel next considers whether Hatcher could challenge his sentence, but
correctly concludes that his appeal waiver precludes such a challenge. An appeal
waiver “stands or falls” with the underlying guilty plea. United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d
504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). In his plea agreement, Hatcher waived his right to appeal his
conviction and sentence “on any ground.” His waiver explicitly extended to “all
provisions of the guilty plea and sentence imposed, including the length and conditions
of supervised release and the amount of any fine.” And counsel rightly observes that no
exception to the appeal waiver would apply. Hatcher’s 250-month prison sentence and
five-year term of supervised release do not exceed the statutory maximums of life
imprisonment and supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). And nothing in
the record suggests that the judge considered any constitutionally impermissible
factors. See United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016).
We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --