Concurrent Supervised Release Terms and Harmless Rule 11 Misadvisement in an Anders Appeal

Introduction

In United States v. Domingo Francisco-Juan (Nos. 24-1594 & 24-1595), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a nonprecedential disposition granting appointed counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw and dismissing the consolidated appeals. The case arises from two federal prosecutions in the Central District of Illinois: (1) an illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a); and (2) a human-trafficking-related prosecution involving forced labor and kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1594, and 1201. After guilty pleas (one with and one without a plea agreement), the district court imposed a life sentence on the trafficking counts and an 18-month concurrent sentence on the illegal reentry count.

On appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that any appeal would be frivolous, and the defendant did not respond. The Seventh Circuit limited its review to the issues flagged by counsel and focused on: (i) the validity of the guilty pleas, particularly a misstatement during the Rule 11 colloquy about the maximum term of supervised release; (ii) the effect and enforceability of an appeal waiver in the trafficking case; (iii) the correctness of the sentencing guidelines calculation for illegal reentry; and (iv) the substantive reasonableness of the within-guidelines illegal reentry sentence.

Summary of the Opinion

The Seventh Circuit granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeals. It concluded there were no nonfrivolous issues to pursue:

Rule 11 Plea Colloquy: The only error identified was the government’s misstatement that supervised release terms could run consecutively for a total of 23 years. By law, supervised release terms run concurrently. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). The court found the error harmless because there was no reasonable probability the defendant would have rejected the pleas had he been properly advised (he faced life sentences and removal upon release).
Appeal Waiver: In the trafficking case, the written plea agreement included a comprehensive appeal waiver (except for ineffective assistance). The court deemed the waiver enforceable because the plea was voluntary and the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum or rest on unconstitutional factors.
Guidelines Calculation for Illegal Reentry: The defendant agreed to the calculation (offense level 13; range 18–24 months), so any challenge was waived on appeal.
Substantive Reasonableness: The 18-month within-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry was presumptively reasonable and adequately supported by the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis.

Accordingly, the court concluded that any appellate challenge would be frivolous, granted the Anders motion, and dismissed the appeals.

Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Establishes the procedure allowing appointed counsel to withdraw when an appeal would be frivolous. Counsel must file a brief identifying potential issues; the court independently reviews the record to ensure no nonfrivolous issues exist. Here, the court credited counsel’s thorough Anders submission and limited review accordingly.
United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014): Supports limiting review to issues raised in counsel’s Anders submission when the appellant does not respond, a point reinforced by Seventh Circuit Rule 51(b).
United States v. Larry, 104 F.4th 1020 (7th Cir. 2024): Confirms that in Anders appeals from guilty pleas, counsel should address potential challenges to plea validity—precisely what counsel did here.
United States v. Collins, 986 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2021): Provides that absent a motion to withdraw a plea in the district court, appellate review of Rule 11 errors is for plain error.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b) and 11(h): Rule 11(b) governs the court’s plea colloquy duties (ensuring understanding of charges, penalties, and rights waived), and Rule 11(h) supplies the harmless-error principle for plea irregularities.
United States v. Schaul, 962 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2020): Articulates the prejudice standard for Rule 11 error: the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have pled guilty.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(e): Supervised release terms run concurrently, not consecutively. The government’s contrary advisement at the plea hearing was erroneous.
United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2020): An appeal waiver stands or falls with the validity of the plea. The Seventh Circuit will not enforce a waiver if the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum or rests on an impermissible factor like race—exceptions not present here.
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003), and United States v. Flores, 739 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2014): Ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily better raised in collateral review, where a fuller record can be developed.
United States v. Boyle, 28 F.4th 798 (7th Cir. 2022): A defendant who agrees to the guidelines calculation waives appellate challenges to that calculation.
United States v. Williams, 85 F.4th 844 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1046 (2024): A within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): Sentencing factors, here applied to emphasize the severity and duration of the trafficking offenses and the defendant’s repeated unlawful reentries to facilitate the crimes.
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1: The panel designated this a nonprecedential disposition, citable only in accord with Rule 32.1. It is not binding precedent but may be cited for its persuasive value.

2) Legal Reasoning

The panel proceeded within the Anders framework. Because counsel filed a detailed brief and the defendant did not file a pro se response, the court reviewed only the issues counsel identified. The court’s reasoning unfolded in four steps:

Plea Validity and Rule 11: The district court conducted a consolidated plea hearing with an interpreter in the defendant’s native language (Kanjobal), confirmed competence, explained the charges, penalties, and rights being waived, and found an adequate factual basis. The lone defect was the government’s incorrect advisement that supervised release terms could run consecutively to a cumulative 23-year maximum. Under § 3624(e), supervised release terms run concurrently, so the true maximum was 5 years on the trafficking counts (the longest authorized supervised release term among the counts). Applying Rule 11(h) and Schaul, the panel deemed the error harmless: given the exposure to life imprisonment on multiple counts and notice of removal upon release, there was no reasonable probability the defendant would have declined to plead if properly advised. The PSRs and the court’s ultimate sentence also reflected the correct concurrent terms, confirming no prejudice.
Appeal Waiver Enforceability (Trafficking Case): The defendant’s plea agreement contained a comprehensive appeal waiver (except for ineffective assistance). Because the plea was voluntary and the sentence did not exceed statutory limits or rely on unconstitutional factors, the waiver was enforceable. Any ineffective assistance claim was reserved for collateral review.
Guidelines Calculation (Illegal Reentry): The defendant agreed to the PSR’s calculation (total offense level 13; range 18–24 months). Under Boyle, this agreement waived any appellate challenge to that calculation.
Substantive Reasonableness (Illegal Reentry): The district court imposed an 18-month sentence within the guidelines range, which is presumptively reasonable. The court thoroughly addressed § 3553(a), emphasizing the defendant’s eight prior removals and repeated unauthorized entries in service of the trafficking conspiracy. No nonfrivolous argument could rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

3) Impact and Practical Significance

Although designated nonprecedential, the disposition provides clear, practical guidance for federal criminal practice in the Seventh Circuit:

Rule 11 Misadvisements on Supervised Release: Misstating that supervised release terms may run consecutively is an error, but it will not warrant reversal absent a plausible showing of prejudice—particularly when the defendant faces life imprisonment and the record elsewhere (PSR, sentencing) correctly applies concurrent terms. Practitioners should still vigilantly ensure accurate advisements at plea hearings; district courts should correct any misstatements in real time.
Concurrency of Supervised Release Terms: The opinion reiterates the statutory rule—supervised release runs concurrently (§ 3624(e)). This matters in multi-count cases where stacking supervised release would otherwise appear to balloon exposure.
Anders Review Boundaries: When counsel’s Anders brief is thorough and the defendant does not respond, the Seventh Circuit limits review to issues counsel identifies. Defense counsel should comprehensively canvass all potentially arguable issues, including plea validity, sentencing calculations, and substantive reasonableness.
Appeal Waivers: Broad waivers remain enforceable if the plea is valid and the sentence is lawful and constitutional. Defendants wishing to preserve appellate issues should negotiate carve-outs; otherwise, challenges are foreclosed, with ineffective-assistance claims left for collateral proceedings.
Agreement to Guidelines Calculations: Explicit agreement to a PSR calculation waives later appellate challenges. Counsel should preserve objections in the district court to avoid waiver.
Within-Guidelines Presumption: The court’s reliance on the presumption of reasonableness underscores that overcoming it requires a cogent showing that § 3553(a) factors were misapplied or mitigating circumstances were ignored.

In sum, the disposition reinforces well-settled principles rather than breaking new ground, particularly the harmless- error analysis for Rule 11 misadvisements and the concurrency of supervised release terms, all within the procedural confines of Anders review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders Procedure: Appointed counsel may withdraw if, after a conscientious review, counsel believes the appeal would be frivolous. Counsel files a brief identifying potential issues, the defendant may respond, and the appellate court independently confirms there are no nonfrivolous issues before granting withdrawal.
Rule 11 Colloquy: Before accepting a guilty plea, the judge must ensure the defendant understands the charges, penalties, and rights being waived, and that a factual basis supports the plea. Errors can be harmless if they do not affect the defendant’s decision to plead.
Plain Error Review: If the defendant did not move to withdraw the plea in the district court, appellate review asks whether there was an obvious error that affected substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings.
Harmless Error and Substantial Rights: A Rule 11 error is harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pled guilty if properly advised.
Supervised Release (Concurrency): Supervised release begins after imprisonment and, by statute, multiple supervised release terms run at the same time (concurrently), not one after another (consecutively), unless a statute specifically provides otherwise.
Appeal Waiver: A defendant can bargain away appellate rights in a plea agreement. Courts generally enforce such waivers if the plea is voluntary and the sentence is lawful, with narrow exceptions.
Waiver vs. Forfeiture in Sentencing: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right—as when a defendant affirmatively agrees to a guidelines calculation—precluding appellate review. Forfeiture is a failure to assert a right, often yielding plain-error review rather than outright bar.
Within-Guidelines Presumption: Appellate courts presume a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is reasonable, placing the burden on the defendant to show otherwise under § 3553(a).
Collateral Review for Ineffective Assistance: Claims of ineffective assistance typically require fact development (e.g., counsel’s strategy), making a post-conviction motion (28 U.S.C. § 2255) the usual vehicle.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s nonprecedential disposition in United States v. Francisco-Juan reaffirms several settled but practically significant principles:

Supervised release terms run concurrently; misadvising a defendant that they can be stacked does not invalidate a plea absent prejudice.
Anders review confines the appellate court to assessing whether any nonfrivolous issues exist; when none are present and the defendant does not respond, dismissal is appropriate.
Comprehensive appeal waivers are broadly enforceable when pleas are valid and sentences lawful, with ineffective-assistance claims reserved for collateral review.
Agreement to a guidelines calculation waives later challenges; within-guidelines sentences remain presumptively reasonable when supported by § 3553(a).

Although not binding precedent, the decision offers careful, practical guidance for plea colloquies involving supervised release, for counsel navigating Anders obligations, and for preserving appellate issues in plea-driven federal criminal cases. It underscores the centrality of accurate Rule 11 advisements, the importance of the statutory concurrency rule for supervised release, and the limits of appellate review imposed by valid appeal waivers and unpreserved challenges.