USA v. Juan Castillo, No. 09-2357 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 10, 2010 Decided March 10, 2010 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 09 2357 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division v. No. 05 CR 601 8 JUAN ALBERTO CASTILLO, Defendant Appellant. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge. O R D E R Juan Alberto Castillo pleaded guilty to conspiring to import 1 kilogram or more of heroin into the United States, see 21 U.S.C. § 963; 18 U.S.C. § 2, and received a sentence of 120 months imprisonment. In his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. Castillo responded to his lawyer s submissions. See CIR. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the potential issues identified in the facially adequate brief No. 09 2357 Page 2 submitted by counsel and in Castillo s response. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Castillo has provided no hint that he wishes to have his guilty plea set aside, so counsel rightly omits a discussion of the plea s voluntariness or the plea colloquy. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). Both counsel and Castillo consider whether Castillo could challenge his sentence. Counsel focuses on the possible applicability of a safety valve reduction, see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, and Castillo on the calculation of his criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. Both of these arguments, however, are foreclosed by the appeal waiver. If the guilty plea stands, so does the waiver. See Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008). Finally, counsel, who did not represent Castillo at trial, also considers whether Castillo could argue that his trial counsel was ineffective. But a challenge to the adequacy of counsel s performance is best explored in a collateral proceeding so that a more complete record can be developed. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 05 (2003); United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543, 557 58 (7th Cir. 2005). For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel s motion to withdraw and DISMISS Castillo s appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
