USA v. Jaime Cruz, No. 08-2114 (7th Cir. 2009)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 August 12, 2009 Decided August 12, 2009 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge No. 08 2114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 CR 783 JAIME BARRAZA CRUZ, Defendant Appellant. Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. O R D E R Jaime Barraza Cruz ( Barraza ), a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to being in the United States without permission after his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In his plea agreement Barraza waived the right to appeal his conviction and any part of his sentence. Barraza has an extensive criminal history, including two previous drug convictions, and he committed the current offense within two years of his last release from prison and while still on supervised release. As part of the plea agreement, the government did not pursue charges for violation of supervised release. In light of Barraza s family circumstances, the district court sentenced him to 64 months in prison, in the middle of the applicable guidelines range. Barraza filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Barraza has not accepted our invitation to respond to No. 08 2114 Page 2 counsel s submission. See CIR. R. 51(b). We confine our review to the potential issues outlined in counsel s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Barraza wants to challenge his prison sentence, but he does not seek to undermine his guilty plea. Counsel thus appropriately omits any discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the guilty plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670 71 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the plea agreement is enforceable and so is the appellate waiver, United States v. Wilson, 481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d 859, 860 (7th Cir. 2001). Any appellate issue concerning Barraza s sentence would be frivolous. 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.
