Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01350/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kevin Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KEVIN WASHINGTON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1350 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00444-PAB-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Kevin Washington pleaded guilty to one count of attempted possession of, 

with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. In his plea agreement, the parties agreed to 

recommend a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment (the statutory mandatory 

minimum, which turned out to be less than the Guidelines range of 84 to 105 

months). Mr. Washington also agreed to waive his right to appeal. Nevertheless, 

after the district court accepted the recommendation and sentenced him to 60 months’ 

 *

 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 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 

May 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1350 Document: 01019620640 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 
2 

imprisonment, he appealed. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver 

under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) 

(per curiam). 

Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal waiver: “(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. In 

response to the government’s motion, Mr. Washington, through counsel, conceded 

the motion by withdrawing his previously expressed opposition and failing to dispute 

any of the Hahn factors. 

We need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not dispute. 

See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of 

Mr. Washington’s concession, the motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is 

dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-1350 Document: 01019620640 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2