United States v. Zanders – Clarifying the Limited Reach of Drug-Quantity Stipulations and the Continued Strength of Appeal Waivers

1. Introduction

United States v. Vorheese D. Zanders, No. 24-2087, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on 13 June 2025, is a non-precedential order (Fed. R. App. P. 32.1) that nevertheless delivers two important practical messages for federal criminal practitioners:

Plea-agreement clauses that stipulate a drug quantity “including relevant conduct” govern only the base level in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, not subsequent specific-offense-characteristic or role adjustments, unless the agreement expressly says otherwise.
Knowing and voluntary waivers of appeal remain iron-clad; absent a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum or reliance on a constitutionally forbidden factor, they will be enforced—even when the defendant later asserts confusion or coercion.

The dispute arose from Mr. Zanders’s contention that the Government breached the plea agreement by supporting guideline enhancements after having stipulated to a maximum converted-drug weight. The Seventh Circuit—reviewing the case through the lens of an Anders submission—found no colorable claim, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Plea & Charges: Zanders pleaded guilty to (i) possession with intent to distribute ≥ 40 grams of fentanyl (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); and (ii) possession of a firearm in furtherance of that drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). Eight additional counts were dismissed.
Plea Agreement Highlights:
- 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- Government recommendation for a sentence at the low end of the applicable range.
- Drug-quantity stipulation: “no more than 3,000 kilograms of Converted Drug Weight, including relevant conduct.”
- Comprehensive waiver of the right to appeal “all components” of the sentence.
Guidelines Calculations: PSR initially recommended Offense Level 33; after eliminating the “criminal livelihood” enhancement, the final level was 31 with a range of 195–228 months. The district court ultimately imposed 180 months (low-end variance).
Issues on Appeal: (i) validity of the plea (alleged coercion & ineffective assistance); (ii) alleged Government breach of the drug-quantity clause; (iii) propriety of enhancements; (iv) enforceability of the appeal waiver.
Holding: No non-frivolous issue exists. The plea was knowing and voluntary, the drug-quantity clause is unambiguous, and the appeal waiver bars any sentencing challenge. Appeal dismissed; counsel’s Anders motion granted.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – Governs appointed counsel’s obligations when an appeal appears frivolous.
United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) – Sets framework for limited review in Anders cases.
United States v. Cross, 962 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2020) – Standard for withdrawing a plea; abuse-of-discretion review.
United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2017) – A defendant’s claim of earlier perjury at the plea colloquy is insufficient to withdraw a plea.
Matchopatow, 259 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2001) – Courts cannot ignore unambiguous plea-agreement language.
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) & United States v. McClinton, 23 F.4th 732 (7th Cir. 2022) – Ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily reserved for collateral review.
Jones v. United States, 167 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 1999) – Standards for enforcing appeal waivers.

Collectively, these cases anchor the Seventh Circuit’s approach: rigorous enforcement of clear plea terms, limited appellate scrutiny where waivers apply, and the relegation of ineffective-assistance claims to § 2255 proceedings.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a) Contract Interpretation of Plea Agreements

Plea agreements are construed according to ordinary principles of contract law. The panel held that the stipulation to a drug quantity “including relevant conduct” plainly addressed only the quantity variable in § 2D1.1. Because guideline adjustments (e.g., premises maintenance, organizer role) are analytically distinct from drug weight, the Government’s advocacy for those enhancements was not a breach. The court rejected Zanders’s attempt to import a “no other enhancements” promise that the contract did not contain.

b) Validity of the Plea & Appeal Waiver

Rule 11 colloquy: Zanders confirmed—under oath—that he understood the agreement, had not been threatened, and knew of the appellate waiver. Those answers are “solemn declarations” that “carry a strong presumption of verity.”
Withdrawal Motion: His later assertions of coercion and ignorance, unaccompanied by evidence and contradicted by his colloquy, fell short of the “fair and just reason” required by Cross.
Waiver Enforcement: Because the plea is valid, the waiver stands. Neither exception in Jones (sentence above statutory maximum or reliance on impermissible factors) was implicated.

c) Anders Framework

Appointed counsel must (i) conduct a conscientious examination; (ii) identify anything that arguably might support the appeal; and (iii) explain why each potential issue is frivolous. The panel—citing Bey—confined its own review to those topics and found counsel’s submission adequate. That procedural posture buttresses the dismissal.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Although labeled “non-precedential,” the order has practical ripple effects:

Plea Drafting: Prosecutors and defense counsel who wish to cap not only drug quantity but also enhancements must spell that out. Phrases such as “no additional guideline adjustments shall apply” should be incorporated if that limitation is intended.
Litigation Strategy: Defense arguments that the Government implicitly waived enhancements by agreeing to a drug weight face an uphill battle in the Seventh Circuit.
Appellate Counsel Duties: The opinion reiterates that counsel can—and should—seek to withdraw under Anders when the record precludes non-frivolous issues, even in high-stake drug/firearm cases.
Waiver Robustness: The Seventh Circuit remains steadfast in enforcing appellate waivers, promoting finality and discouraging post-plea litigation absent exceptional circumstances.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders Brief: A filing by court-appointed counsel stating that the appeal has no meritorious issues, accompanied by a request to withdraw.
Relevant Conduct: In guideline parlance, activity connected to the offense (e.g., additional drug transactions) that counts toward the defendant’s base offense level or adjustments.
Converted Drug Weight: A method in § 2D1.1 that translates different controlled substances into a single marijuana-equivalent metric for uniform sentencing.
Plea-Withdrawal Standard: Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B), a defendant must show a “fair and just reason” to retract a guilty plea before sentencing.
Appeal Waiver: A contractual relinquishment of the right to appeal some or all issues, enforced if entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Specific-Offense Characteristic / Role Adjustment: Guideline increases (or decreases) that account for how the crime was committed (e.g., use of premises, leadership role) or the offender’s role.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Zanders underscores two enduring principles in federal criminal practice: (1) Plea agreements mean what they say—no more, no less. A drug-quantity stipulation, even one referencing “relevant conduct,” does not silently bar guideline enhancements unless the parties explicitly agree to such a bar. (2) Comprehensive appeal waivers, when accepted knowingly and voluntarily, foreclose nearly all appellate avenues. For attorneys negotiating pleas, precision of language is critical; for defendants considering post-plea challenges, Zanders serves as a cautionary tale that self-contradictory affidavits and generalized claims of coercion will not suffice. Although the order is non-precedential, its reasoning fits squarely within Seventh Circuit doctrine and will likely be cited informally by district courts facing similar disputes over guideline enhancements and waiver enforcement. Practitioners should heed its lessons to avoid unintended exposure at sentencing and to preserve appellate rights intentionally and unequivocally.