USA v. Kyle Jackson, No. 21-1814 (7th Cir. 2022)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 19, 2022 Decided April 20, 2022 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge No. 21-1814 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KYLE JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. No. 2:20CR56-001 James T. Moody, Judge. ORDER Kyle Jackson pleaded guilty to making a false statement while purchasing a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and the district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 27 months in prison with 2 years’ supervised release. Although his plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, Jackson appealed. His appointed counsel asserts that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief explains the nature of the case and raises potential issues that an appeal like this would be expected to involve. Because her analysis appears thorough, and Jackson has not responded to counsel’s motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), we limit No. 21-1814 Page 2 our review to the subjects that counsel discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). We agree with counsel that Jackson’s appeal waiver forecloses any appellate argument. Counsel tells us that she conferred with her client and Jackson does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, only the length of his sentence. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012). But, in his plea agreement, Jackson “expressly waive[d] [his] right to appeal or to contest [his] conviction and all components of [his] sentence or the manner in which [his] conviction or [his] sentence was determined or imposed, to any Court on any ground.” An appeal waiver “stands or falls with the underlying agreement and plea,” and because Jackson does not want to challenge the plea agreement, the appeal waiver blocks this appeal. United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). Further, counsel correctly deems frivolous any argument that an exception to the appeal waiver could apply. See id. Jackson’s 27-month sentence was less than the 10-year statutory maximum sentence that he faced, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), and his 2-year supervised-release term was below the 3-year maximum for a Class C felony. See id. §§ 3583(b)(2), 3559(a)(3). Additionally, the record does not reasonably suggest that the judge considered any constitutionally impermissible factor at sentencing. Therefore, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the 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.
