⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears United States versus Williams, an appeal following a guilty plea in a prosecution for six robberies and related firearm offenses. The government describes a gun being displayed to intimidate victims during the robberies. The discussion turns to what a guilty plea and an agreement not to appeal do, and do not, foreclose. Two questions help orient the hearing: whether an appeal waiver prevents review at all, and whether complaints about appointed counsel warrant further inquiry. An appeal waiver is a promise to give up specified appellate challenges as part of a plea agreement. It must be knowing and voluntary. Even a valid waiver is not an absolute bar to every challenge: the Supreme Court has recognized a narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception for egregious sentencing errors, not ordinary mistakes. A separate set of rules governs requests for a different appointed lawyer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective representation, not a lawyer who agrees with every strategy a defendant prefers. Relevant considerations include when the request was made, how thoroughly the judge explored it, and whether conflict prevented lawyer and client from communicating well enough to mount an adequate defense. No single consideration automatically decides the issue. As you listen, keep the threshold ability to appeal separate from the merits of a complaint about counsel. This hearing is not itself a trial deciding which robberies involved a gun, or a ruling that every disagreement with a lawyer invalidates a guilty plea.

United States v. Robert Williams (No. 25-2594) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.