Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05123/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan James Murphy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BRYAN JAMES MURPHY, 

a/k/a Bryan Michael Sebesta, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-5123 

(D.C. No. 4:15-CR-00101-JED-1) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Bryan James Murphy pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one 

count of making a false statement to a federal agency. The plea agreement contained 

a broad waiver of appellate rights that reserved only “the right to appeal from a 

sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum; and from contested sentencing 

issues if the sentence exceeds six (6) months.” Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1, at 3. The 

statutory maximum was five years; Mr. Murphy received a sentence of four months’ 

 

* 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 11, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5123 Document: 01019618158 Date Filed: 05/11/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

imprisonment. Despite his waiver, Mr. Murphy filed an appeal seeking to challenge 

his sentence. The government then moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United 

States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 An appeal waiver must be enforced if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the 

scope of the waiver of appellate rights”; (2) “the defendant knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and (3) “enforcing the waiver would [not] 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government’s motion addressed 

each of these factors and why they were met. 

In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Murphy’s counsel stated that he 

could not discern any non-frivolous ground on which to oppose the motion and so 

moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel did 

identify and analyze three potential issues that he believed Mr. Murphy wanted to 

raise: (1) that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because it included a term 

of incarceration; (2) that defense counsel did not properly advocate on Mr. Murphy’s 

behalf at the sentencing hearing; and (3) that Mr. Murphy’s right of allocution was 

not fully vindicated because defense counsel convinced him to forego making 

statements to the court during his allocution. We gave Mr. Murphy notice of his 

counsel’s response and an opportunity to file his own response. The deadline for 

doing so has long passed, and we have received no response from Mr. Murphy. 

We have independently reviewed the record, see id. at 744, and we conclude 

that there is no non-frivolous defense to the government’s motion. The record 

Appellate Case: 15-5123 Document: 01019618158 Date Filed: 05/11/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

unequivocally establishes that the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the 

waiver was knowing and voluntary, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a 

miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Accordingly, we grant the 

government’s motion to enforce and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-5123 Document: 01019618158 Date Filed: 05/11/2016 Page: 3