Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05083/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05083-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Joe Laverty
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff − Appellee, 

v. 

BILLY JOE LAVERTY, 

 Defendant − Appellant. 

No. 15-5083 

(D.C. No. 4:15-CR-00074-CVE-1) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Billy Joe Laverty was charged with two counts of Interference with Commerce 

by Robbery, Carjacking, and Discharging a Firearm During and in Relation to a 

Crime of Violence. He entered into a plea agreement with the government, which 

contained a waiver of his appellate rights. After he pleaded guilty pursuant to the 

agreement, he was sentenced to a stipulated sentence of 300 months of imprisonment. 

Despite the appellate waiver in his plea agreement, Mr. Laverty filed a notice of 

 

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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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

December 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5083 Document: 01019536679 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

appeal. The government then filed a motion to enforce the appellate waiver in 

Mr. Laverty’s plea agreement consistent with the procedures outlined in our decision 

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

 Under Hahn, we consider: “(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. Mr. Laverty has filed a response 

to the motion to enforce in which he “concedes that, under the standard announced in 

[Hahn], the appellate waiver in his plea agreement is enforceable.” Aplt. Resp. at 1. 

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-5083 Document: 01019536679 Date Filed: 12/09/2015 Page: 2