USA v. David Lindsay, No. 09-3906 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 April 14, 2010 Decided April 16, 2010 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge No. 09 3906 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division v. No. 2:08CR00014 004 DAVID LINDSAY, Defendant Appellant. William T. Lawrence, Judge. O R D E R David Lindsay pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine and possessing with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and was sentenced to 204 months imprisonment. In the plea agreement he waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous No. 09 3906 Page 2 argument to pursue. Lindsay did not accept our invitation to respond to his lawyer s submissions, see CIR. R. 51(b), so we limit our review to the potential issues identified in counsel s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Lindsay does not seek 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). Counsel considers whether Lindsay could challenge the reasonableness of his agreed upon sentence, but properly concludes that such a challenge would be foreclosed by the appeal waiver. Because the guilty plea stands, so does the waiver. See Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008). Finally, counsel correctly points out that any challenge to the effectiveness of his representation in the district court should be 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 Lindsay 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.
