USA v. Gary Hatcher, Jr., No. 22-2287 (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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 July 11, 2023 Decided July 13, 2023 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 22-2287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. v. No. 1:20-CR-00171-003 GARY HATCHER, JR., a/k/a SMALLS, Defendant-Appellant. James R. Sweeney II, Judge. ORDER Gary Hatcher, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 250 months in prison and five years of supervised release. Although his plea agreement contained a broad appeal waiver, Hatcher filed a notice of appeal. His 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 appeal and addresses issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Hatcher did not respond to No. 22-2287 Page 2 counsel’s motion. See CIR. R. 51(b). Because counsel’s analysis appears thorough, we focus on the subjects that he discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014). Counsel first informs us that Hatcher wishes to challenge his guilty plea, see United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012), but correctly concludes that any challenge would be frivolous. The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that the district judge substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge ensured that Hatcher understood the charges, the trial and appeal rights that he was waiving, and the statutory minimum and maximum penalties. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1). And the judge confirmed that Hatcher was pleading guilty voluntarily and that his plea was supported by an adequate factual basis. See id. 11(b)(2)–(3). Counsel next considers whether Hatcher could challenge his sentence, but correctly concludes that his appeal waiver precludes such a challenge. An appeal waiver “stands or falls” with the underlying guilty plea. United States v. Nulf, 978 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). In his plea agreement, Hatcher waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence “on any ground.” His waiver explicitly extended to “all provisions of the guilty plea and sentence imposed, including the length and conditions of supervised release and the amount of any fine.” And counsel rightly observes that no exception to the appeal waiver would apply. Hatcher’s 250-month prison sentence and five-year term of supervised release do not exceed the statutory maximums of life imprisonment and supervised release. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). 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). We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion 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.
