Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06026/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gabriel Alexander Quoyah
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

GABRIEL ALEXANDER QUOYAH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-6026 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00214-HE-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HOLMES and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, Gabriel Alexander 

Quoyah pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and 

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him 

to 120 months’ imprisonment and entered judgment. Despite his appeal waiver, 

Mr. Quoyah filed a pro se notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce 

the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(en banc) (per curiam). 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 

June 16, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6026 Document: 01019445524 Date Filed: 06/16/2015 Page: 1 
2 

We appointed counsel to represent Mr. Quoyah in this matter. Counsel filed a 

response stating a belief that the appeal is frivolous and informing us that he would 

file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), if required to do 

so. We gave Mr. Quoyah an opportunity to respond, but he has not done so. Our 

resolution of the case is, therefore, based on counsel’s intention to file an Anders

brief, the government’s motion to enforce, and our independent review of the record. 

In United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc), we 

held that we would enforce appeal waivers as long as three conditions were met: 

(1) the matter on appeal “falls within the scope of the waiver”; (2) the 

defendant-appellant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and 

(3) enforcing the waiver will not “result in a miscarriage of justice.” Pursuant to our 

obligation under Anders, we have undertaken a searching review of the record in this 

case. That review unequivocally demonstrates that the Hahn factors favor enforcing 

Mr. Quoyah’s waiver of appellate rights. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the 

basis of Hahn. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-6026 Document: 01019445524 Date Filed: 06/16/2015 Page: 2