Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07099/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Neal Clary
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff!Appellee,

v.

DAVID NEAL CLARY,

Defendant!Appellant.

No. 09-7099

(D.C. No. 6:08-CR-00081-JHP-1)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, David Neal Clary pleaded guilty to being a

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The

government has moved to enforce the plea agreement’s appeal waiver. See

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

curiam). In response, Mr. Clary does not oppose the motion because he

Appellate Case: 09-7099 Document: 01018409990 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

“concedes that, under the standard announced in . . . Hahn . . ., the plea

agreement, with its waiver of his right to appeal, is enforceable.” Aplt. Resp. at

1. Although we are not required to address a Hahn factor that the defendant does

not contest, see United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005), we

have independently confirmed that this appeal is within the scope of Mr. Clary’s

appellate waiver, that Mr. Clary knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate

rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. 

See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. To the extent that Mr. Clary wishes to challenge

counsel’s effectiveness, such issues generally should be raised in a motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Porter, 405 F.3d at 1144. 

The motion to enforce the plea agreement is GRANTED and this appeal is

DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 09-7099 Document: 01018409990 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Page: 2