Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Clerk of Court
No. 09-3365
(D.C. No. 5:08-CR-40027-SAC-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral
argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
-3-
-4-
did not know what the sentencing range would be at the time she entered into the
plea agreement.
As we explained in Hahn, a defendant need not know with specificity the
result he forfeits before his waiver is valid. 359 F.3d at 1327. The law
ordinarily considers a waiver knowing, intelligent, and sufficiently aware if the
defendant fully understands the nature of the right and how it would likely apply
in general in the circumstanceseven though the defendant may not know the
specific detailed consequences of invoking it. Id. (brackets and quotation
omitted). Defendant, therefore, did not need to know exactly how his sentence
would be calculated in order to waive his right to appeal any aspect of his
sentence.
As the governments motion details, the plea agreement and the plea
colloquy demonstrate that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights. See Mot. to Enforce at 4-5. Defendant has failed to carry his
burden to show that the appeal waiver was not entered knowingly and voluntarily.
See United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d 867, 872-73 (10th Cir. 2003).
Miscarriage of Justice
Finally, defendant asserts the appeal waiver in his plea agreement should
not be enforced because it would result in a miscarriage of justice. An appeal
waiver results in a miscarriage of justice where: (1) the district court relied on
an impermissible factor such as race; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in
-5-
connection with the negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid; (3) the
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise
unlawful. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (quotation omitted).
Defendant contends that the district court erred by calculating [his]
offense level based on evidence that the government did not prove by a
preponderance and facts that were unsupported by the record at sentencing.
Resp. at 11. Defendant does not identify which factor is at issue in his case, but
it appears he is arguing that the waiver is otherwise unlawful because the other
three factors are not at issue here. In order to meet his burden on the fourth
factor, see United States v. Anderson, 374 F.3d 955, 959 (10th Cir. 2004), the
error [must] seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of [the]
judicial proceedings. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (quoting United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). Although defendant asserts that the district court
erred in the calculation of his sentence, he has not demonstrated that any alleged
error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial
proceedings.
Accordingly, defendant has not established any of the applicable exceptions
to the enforcement of his appeal waiver. We therefore GRANT the governments
-6-
motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendants plea agreement and
DISMISS the appeal.
-7-