Clarifying the Standard for Nonfrivolous Sentencing Guideline Objections in Anders Appeals

Introduction

United States v. Jamie Sullivan, decided May 20 2025 by the Seventh Circuit, addresses the threshold for nonfrivolous appellate arguments when appointed counsel files an Anders brief challenging a sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Jamie Sullivan pleaded guilty to multiple drug-trafficking and money-laundering counts and received a lengthy prison term. On appeal, her lawyer moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that any challenge to Sullivan’s plea or sentence would be frivolous. The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

This commentary examines the background of the case, summarizes the court’s decision, analyzes the precedents and reasoning employed, assesses the impact on future sentencing litigation, simplifies key concepts, and highlights the broader significance of the ruling.

Summary of the Judgment

In January 2024, Jamie Sullivan was charged in the Southern District of Indiana with a five-count indictment: conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846), monetary-instrument laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), distribution of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), possession with intent to distribute fentanyl (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)). The firearm count was dismissed; Sullivan pleaded guilty to the remaining counts without benefit of a plea agreement.

A presentence investigation report (PSR) grouped her offenses for Guidelines calculation, resulting in a total offense level capped at 43 and a Criminal History Category I, yielding a sentencing range of life imprisonment. Sullivan lodged five objections to specific guideline enhancements (firearm possession, livelihood pattern, supervisory role, zero-point status, and maintenance of a stash house). The district court overruled each, applied a below-guidelines sentence of 288 months, and ordered fines and forfeiture.

On appeal, counsel submitted an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues existed. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the challenged enhancements de novo (fact findings for clear error), surveyed Sullivan’s objections, reaffirmed the correct application of each enhancement, and upheld the substantive reasonableness of the below-guidelines sentence. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and dismissed the appeal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Establishes the procedure for court-appointed counsel to withdraw when an appeal is frivolous and the requirement to notify the defendant and identify potential nonfrivolous issues.
United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014): Permits the appellate court to limit review to issues discussed in the Anders brief when counsel’s analysis is thorough.
United States v. Larry, 104 F.4th 1020 (7th Cir. 2024): Confirms that if a defendant does not wish to withdraw her plea, no Anders-based plea-colloquy argument is viable.
United States v. Shehadeh, 127 F.4th 1058 (7th Cir. 2025): Reiterates the standard of de novo review for guideline interpretation and clear-error review for factual findings.
United States v. Ford, 22 F.4th 687 (7th Cir. 2022): Shifts the burden to the defendant to show it was “clearly improbable” that a firearm was connected to the drug offense.
United States v. Corral, 324 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2003): Presumes guns found in close proximity to drug activity are connected to that activity.
United States v. Contreras, 874 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Sanchez, 810 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016): Define the “stash house” enhancement, requiring that the property’s use in trafficking be “more than incidental.”
United States v. Craft, 99 F.4th 407 (7th Cir. 2024), and United States v. House, 883 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2018): Clarify the application of aggravating-role enhancements under § 3B1.1.
United States v. Moore, 851 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2017): Holds that a below-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and places a heavy burden on the defendant to rebut that presumption.
United States v. Ambriz-Villa, 28 F.4th 786 (7th Cir. 2022): Emphasizes that appellate courts do not reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors in substantive-reasonableness review.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit’s rationale unfolds in three steps:

Scope of Review under Anders: Because counsel’s Anders brief was thorough, the court confined its review to the issues counsel raised, per Bey. Sullivan did not file her own briefs or highlight additional issues.
Evaluation of Guideline Enhancements:
- Firearm Enhancement: Sullivan conceded possession; under Ford the burden shifted to her to prove a lack of connection to drug trafficking. The court relied on Corral and factual findings (loaded gun near drugs) to uphold the enhancement.
- Zero-Point Status: Because the firearm enhancement was valid, Sullivan could not be a “zero-point offender” (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7)).
- Livelihood Pattern & Supervisory Role: Evidence of her leadership, lack of lawful employment, and decision-making within both the drug and money-laundering schemes justified the respective § 2D1.1(b)(16)(E) and § 3B1.1(b) adjustments.
- Stash-House Enhancement: Under § 2D1.1, a property is a “stash house” if trafficking is a primary use. Weekly large-scale drug deliveries supplied by the record satisfied the Contreras standard.
Substantive Reasonableness: The district court balanced the seriousness of a large, manager-level drug operation against Sullivan’s lack of criminal history and genuine remorse. A below-guidelines sentence of 288 months was within the broad discretion accorded sentencing judges and is presumptively reasonable (Moore).

3. Impact on Future Cases

United States v. Sullivan underscores several points of significance:

Appointed counsel’s thorough Anders analysis can limit appellate review to identified issues, easing the court’s caseload and providing clarity on borderline sentencing questions.
The burden-shifting framework for firearm-related enhancements (Ford and Corral) is reaffirmed, signaling that defendants must offer affirmative evidence to detach a gun from their criminal offense.
Courts will continue to apply aggravating-role and stash-house enhancements with a commonsense hierarchical analysis, minimizing concerns over “double counting.”
The decision reinforces the presumption of reasonableness for below-guidelines sentences, discouraging speculative arguments on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders Brief: A document filed by appointed counsel stating that an appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and asking to withdraw. The defendant must be notified and given a chance to submit her own arguments.
De Novo vs. Clear Error: Interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines are reviewed de novo (from scratch); factual findings—such as whether drug activity made a house a “stash house”—are reviewed for clear error (a strong presumption of correctness).
Offense Level & Criminal History Category: The Sentencing Guidelines assign points for the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s background. The combined score points to a sentencing range.
Aggravating-Role Adjustment (§ 3B1.1): Increases the offense level if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in criminal activity.
Stash-House Enhancement (§ 2D1.1 n.17): Adds levels if a defendant used a residence primarily (not just incidentally) to store or distribute drugs.
Presumptive Reasonableness: A sentence within or below the Guidelines range is presumed appropriate, and the defendant bears a heavy burden to show otherwise.

Conclusion

United States v. Sullivan clarifies the scope of appellate review in Anders cases and fortifies established Sentencing Guidelines principles. By systematically affirming the firearm, supervisory-role, livelihood, and stash-house enhancements—and validating a below-guidelines sentence—the Seventh Circuit reinforces defendants’ burdens in challenging guideline computations. This ruling provides a roadmap for counsel and courts navigating the interplay of Anders procedures and complex guideline adjustments, ensuring both procedural rigor and sentencing consistency in future appeals.