Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Dec. 11, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 December 10, 2009 Decided December 11, 2009 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 08-3842 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 CR 27-
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 December 10, 2009 Decided December 11, 2009 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 08-3842 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 07 CR 27-1..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 December 10, 2009
Decided December 11, 2009
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 08‐3842
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 07 CR 27‐1
DEREK A. GILNA,
Defendant‐Appellant. Virginia M. Kendall,
Judge.
O R D E R
Derek Gilna pleaded guilty to bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and was sentenced to 78
months’ imprisonment. After Gilna filed a notice of appeal, the government moved to
dismiss based on Gilna’s promise in his plea agreement to forgo any appeal of his
conviction or sentence. Gilna responded to the government’s motion by asserting that his
severe depression and alcoholism rendered his appeal waiver involuntary. At the same
time, however, Gilna has said explicitly that he “does not seek to overturn his plea of
guilty,” and so we will not inquire into the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the
voluntariness of the guilty plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671‐72 (7th Cir.
2002). And since the appeal waiver in the plea agreement stands or falls with the guilty
plea, the waiver binds Gilna, and his appeal must be dismissed. See United States v. Wilson,
481 F.3d 475, 483 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Nave, 302 F.3d 719, 721 (7th Cir. 2002);
United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d 859, 860‐61 (7th Cir. 2001).
The government’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.