USA v. Anthony Thomas, No. 22-2939 (7th Cir. 2023)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 October 4, 2023 Decided October 5, 2023 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge No. 22-2939 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY L. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:21CR00119-001 Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge. ORDER Anthony Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child and attempted exploitation of a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district judge sentenced him to 360 months in prison and ten years of supervised release, and she ordered that he pay $10,000 in restitution and a $100 special assessment. Though his plea agreement contains a broad appeal waiver, Thomas filed a notice of appeal. His counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and moves to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Thomas has not accepted our invitation to respond to counsel’s motion. See 7TH CIR. R. 51(b). Because counsel’s No. 22-2939 Page 2 analysis in the brief appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects he discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). Counsel informs us that Thomas does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, so counsel properly refrains from discussing the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel does, however, consider whether Thomas can raise any nonfrivolous challenges to his sentence. He rightly concludes that Thomas cannot. Thomas’s plea agreement waives his right to “appeal the conviction and sentence imposed in this case on any ground,” including the length and conditions of his supervised release and the amount of his fine. An appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, see, e.g., United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020), and Thomas chose not to challenge his plea. Additionally, no exception to the appeal waiver would apply because his prison sentence and supervised-release term do not exceed the statutory maximums, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(e), 3583(k), and nothing in the record suggests that the judge considered any constitutionally impermissible factors, see United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018 (7th Cir. 2016). He is thus bound by the appeal waiver. 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.
