UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CHANTZ GERMAINE PATTERSON, 

a/k/a Chantz Terrance Patterson, a/k/a 

Chank, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 12-5107 

(D.C. No. 4:11-CR-00149-CVE-2) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Chantz Germaine Patterson pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to 

commit bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, two counts of bank robbery 

with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), and one count of 

using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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 

August 20, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced 

him to a total of 192 months in prison to be followed by three years’ supervised 

release. In addition, the district court entered a restitution order in the amount of 

$4,336. By plea agreement, Mr. Patterson waived the right to appeal his conviction 

or sentence unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The statutory 

maximum sentence for the charges of conspiracy to commit bank robbery was five 

years, for the charges of bank robbery with a dangerous weapon was twenty-five 

years, and for the firearm charge was life imprisonment. Notwithstanding the appeal 

waiver, Mr. Patterson filed a notice of appeal. 

 The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States 

v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, 

Mr. Patterson’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to 

withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines case and determines that appeal 

would be wholly frivolous). Counsel states that there are no nonfrivolous issues 

presented in the record. 

 Nonetheless, under Anders, we have conducted an independent review of the 

plea agreement, change of plea hearing transcript, sentencing hearing transcript, and 

motion to enforce. See id. After doing so, we conclude that the requirements for 

enforcing the plea waiver at this time have been satisfied: (1) this “appeal falls 

within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights;” (2) Mr. Patterson “knowingly and 
- 3 - 

voluntarily waived his appellate rights;” and (3) “enforcing the waiver would [not] 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. 

This court afforded Mr. Patterson an opportunity to file a pro se response to 

the motion to enforce, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, which he did. Mr. Patterson 

contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating 

the guilty plea and in advising him concerning the plea. That claim should be raised 

in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than on direct appeal, since 

the district court has not had an opportunity to develop the factual record on the 

issue. See, e.g., United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 

2008) (recognizing claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel usually must be 

raised in collateral proceeding); Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 & n. 13 (recognizing 

ineffective assistance of counsel as exception to enforcing appellate waiver, but 

reiterating longstanding rule that such claims are properly considered on collateral 

review). Mr. Patterson may properly bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

concerning the negotiation of his appeal waiver in a collateral proceeding. 

We GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, GRANT 

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and DISMISS the appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam