USA v. Ronny Vazquez, No. 09-3346 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 24, 2010 Decided March 25, 2010 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge No. 09 3346 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONNY VAZQUEZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:08 CR 30255 002 MJR Michael J. Reagan, Judge. O R D E R Ronny Vazquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349; credit card fraud, id. § 1029(a)(5); and aggravated identity theft, id. § 1028A(a)(1). Four other counts were dismissed as part of a plea agreement in which Vazquez waived the right to appeal any aspect of his convictions or sentence so long as the prison term did not exceed his guidelines range. That range was 54 to 61 months, but in light of Vazquez s young age and supportive family, the district court imposed a below range sentence of 48 months. Vazquez filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel has concluded that the case is frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Vazquez opposes counsel s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues outlined in counsel s facially adequate brief and Vazquez s response. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). No. 09 3346 Page 2 Vazquez does not want his guilty pleas set aside, so counsel correctly refrains from discussing the voluntariness of the pleas or the adequacy of the plea colloquy. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). It follows that the plea agreement and waiver of appeal are binding, see United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d 859, 860 61 (7th Cir. 2001), and thus the appeal must be dismissed. In his Rule 51(b) response, Vazquez asserts that a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal. But appeal waivers are permissible and enforceable, e.g. United States v. Cole, 569 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Jones, 381 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Suggs, 374 F.3d 508, 519 (7th Cir. 2004), and although Vazquez includes a number of other potential issues in his response, all of them are precluded by the waiver. Counselʹs motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
