Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01020/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stacey Ella McKern
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

STACEY ELLA MCKERN, 

a/k/a Michelle E. Aragon, a/k/a Stacey 

Aragon, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1020 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00444-CMA-1) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Upon entering into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Stacey 

Ella McKern pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud and aiding and abetting and false use 

of a social security number. She was sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment, 

the top of the guidelines range. Despite the appeal waiver, she appealed. The 

 

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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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

April 7, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1020 Document: 01019411221 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

government moves to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 

359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 Ms. McKern concedes that she cannot in good faith oppose the government’s 

motion and make an argument as to any of Hahn’s three appeal-waiver factors: 

“(1) whether the disputed appeal fails within the scope of the waiver of appellate 

rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived [her] appellate 

rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” 

Id. at 1325. 

We have independently reviewed the plea agreement and transcripts of the plea 

and sentencing hearings, and we agree that Ms. McKern cannot in good faith oppose 

enforcement of the appeal waiver. To the extent she wishes to challenge her 

counsel’s performance, we also agree with her that any ineffective assistance of 

counsel argument should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

See United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc); 

see also Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 n.13 (stating that holding “does not disturb [the] 

longstanding rule” of generally considering ineffective-assistance claims on collateral 

review). We therefore do not address an ineffective-assistance claim in this 

proceeding. 

 

Appellate Case: 15-1020 Document: 01019411221 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

 The motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is dismissed, without 

prejudice to Ms. McKern raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a 

collateral proceeding. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-1020 Document: 01019411221 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 3