Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe LAVERTY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-5083.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Dec. 9, 2015.
    Neal Cho Hong, Janet Sue Reincke, Thomas Scott Woodward, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Virginia L. Grady, O. Dean Sanderford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Billy Joe Laverty was charged with two counts of Interference with Commerce by Robbery, Carjacking, and Discharging a Firearm - During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence. He entered into a plea agreement with the government, which contained a waiver of his appellate rights. After he pleaded guilty pursuant to the agreement, he was sentenced to a stipulated sentence of 300 months of imprisonment. Despite the appellate waiver in his plea agreement, Mr. Laverty filed a notice of appeal. The government then filed a motion to enforce the appellate waiver in Mr. Laverty’s plea agreement consistent with the procedures outlined in our decision in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.2004).

Under Hahn, we consider: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice....” Id. at 1325. Mr. Laverty has filed a response to the motion to enforce in which he “concedes that, under the standard announced in [Hahn ], the appellate waiver in his plea agreement is enforceable.” Aplt. Resp. at 1. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 
      
       This panel has determined 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.