United States of America v. Valentino Colic

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 10, 2026
Decided July 10, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VALENTINO COLIC,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:23-CR-30130-SMY-2
Staci M. Yandle,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Valentino Colic pleaded guilty to wire fraud and identity theft and was
sentenced to 145 months’ imprisonment. He appealed, but his appointed counsel from
the federal public defender’s office asserted that the appeal is frivolous and moved to
withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We denied counsel’s motion
because the Anders brief did not consider a challenge to Colic’s plea based on the district
court’s failure to advise him at the plea colloquy about the potential immigration
consequences of a conviction. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(O). Another assistant federal
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1616 Page 2
public defender has since submitted a supplemental Anders brief to address the
omission, and she too has moved to withdraw. We grant the motion and dismiss the
appeal.
Colic—a lawful permanent resident originally from Bosnia—led a multiyear
scheme in southern Illinois in which he and three codefendants used fake cashier’s
checks and stolen identities to fraudulently purchase and resell used vehicles. He
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349; wire fraud, id.
§ 1343; interstate transportation of property taken by fraud, id. § 2314; and aggravated
identity theft, id. § 1028A. In our prior order, we pointed out that the district court
omitted several admonishments during the plea colloquy, most significantly the
requirement that the defendant be warned of the potential immigration consequences of
a conviction. See F ED. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(O); United States v. Zacahua, 940 F.3d 342, 345
(7th Cir. 2019).
Newly appointed counsel now asserts that she has reviewed the record and
believes that any challenge to this omission under Rule 11(b)(1)(O) would be frivolous.
She begins by noting that our standard of review is limited to plain error because Colic
did not object in the district court or move to withdraw his plea. United States v. Larry,
104 F.4th 1020, 1022 (7th Cir. 2024). To prevail, then, he would need to show, through
contemporaneous evidence, a reasonable probability that he would not have entered
the plea but for the error. Zacahua, 940 F.3d at 345 (citing United States v. Dominguez
Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004)). Counsel rightly concludes he cannot make this showing.
As she explains, the record shows that Colic knew that his status as a legal permanent
resident could be jeopardized by his conviction. His sentencing memorandum, for
instance, acknowledges that noncitizens convicted of crimes face “uncertainty” about
their ability to remain in the country. Counsel also highlights defense counsel’s
statement at the sentencing hearing that Colic did not know what would happen to his
immigration status in the future, particularly under the new presidential
administration. But these concerns did not prompt Colic to take any steps to withdraw
his plea.
We therefore GRANT the motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --