Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-06-04184/USCOURTS-ca10-06-04184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randall C. Moyer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *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

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge **

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

 The district court determined that the adjusted offense level was 34, 1

which became 37 given a career offender enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(A). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 17, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL C. MOYER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-4184

(D.C. No. 2:04-CR-387-TS)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-Appellant Randall C. Moyer pleaded guilty to one count of

attempted manufacture of fifty grams or more of actual methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 240 months’

imprisonment and sixty months’ supervised release. Pursuant to the plea 1

Case: 06-4184 Document: 010133545 Page: 1

Appellate Case: 06-4184 Document: 010158024 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Page: 1
Mr. Moyer received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, resulting in a total offense level of 34, with a criminal history

category of VI. III R. at 13, IV R. at 8, ¶ 31; at 16, ¶¶ 51-53. This resulted in a

Guideline range of 262-327 months; however, after hearing from Mr. Moyer’s

trial counsel, the district court decided upon a downward variance. III R. at 23.

- 2 -

agreement, Mr. Moyer agreed to:

waive my right to appeal any sentence imposed upon me, and the

manner in which the sentence is determined, on any of the grounds

set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 or on any

ground whatever, except I do not waive my right to appeal (1) a

sentence above the maximum penalty provided in the statute of

conviction . . . ; and (2) a sentence above the high end of the

guideline range as determined by the district court at sentencing . . . .

I R. Supp. at 3, ¶ 10. He also agreed to “waive my right to challenge my

sentence, and the manner in which my sentence is determined, in any collateral

review motion, writ or other procedure, including but not limited to a motion

brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255.” Id. Plainly, the 

240-month sentence is below the maximum life term and consistent with the

required five-year supervised release term. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The 240-

month sentence certainly does not exceed the high end of the Guideline range of

327 months–the district court sentenced with a downward variance of 22 months

from the low end of the Guideline range.

Mr. Moyer’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgment

and sentence. Appellate counsel represents that she has reviewed the trial record

available and finds no reasonable grounds for appeal in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She also seeks leave to withdraw. Anders,

Case: 06-4184 Document: 010133545 Page: 2

Appellate Case: 06-4184 Document: 010158024 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Page: 2
- 3 -

386 U.S. at 744. She has raised the following issues in the Anders brief: (1)

whether Mr. Moyer waived his right to appeal, (2) whether the plea was entered

voluntarily and knowingly, (3) whether his Sixth Amendment rights were not

violated when the district court determined that he was a career offender (without

his prior convictions being found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt), (4)

whether his sentence was reasonable, post-Booker applying the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (5) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

of counsel during the course of plea proceedings and whether that could be

cognizable on direct appeal. Aplt. Br. at 1-2, 9. Mr. Moyer was served a copy of

the brief. Aplt. Br. at 24. In response, Mr. Moyer has filed a litany of complaints

about trial and appellate counsel. He seeks to “disallow” the Anders brief and

have new counsel appointed so that he may pursue a district court hearing as to

his sanity, aided by a psychiatric evaluation and complete documents pertaining

to his case. He contends that if his sentence is lawful, he was insane at the time

of the offense, plea change, and/or sentencing. The government has responded

that Mr. Moyer’s appeal is patently frivolous because Mr. Moyer waived his right

to appeal pursuant to the plea agreement, and for reasons identified in the Anders

brief.

Aided by appellate counsel’s thoroughly considered Anders brief, we have

conducted an independent review and examination of the record. An appeal

waiver will be enforced where: (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the scope of

Case: 06-4184 Document: 010133545 Page: 3

Appellate Case: 06-4184 Document: 010158024 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Page: 3
- 4 -

the waiver of appellate rights;” (2) the defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights

was knowing and voluntary; and (3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a

miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.

2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We have reviewed the plea agreement, the

transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings, and Mr. Moyer’s various

responses and motions, and we conclude that the Hahn factors have been satisfied. 

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw, DENY all pending

motions, and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Case: 06-4184 Document: 010133545 Page: 4

Appellate Case: 06-4184 Document: 010158024 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Page: 4