Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Howard JENKINS, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-01
Citations: 608 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 14-7103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Howard JENKINS, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Howard JENKINS, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7103.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 1, 2015.
Linda A. Epperley, Shannon Henson, Office of the United States Attorney, Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Chance Cammack, Robert Allen Riden-our, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Muskogee, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Howard Jenkins, II, Muskogee, OK, pro se.
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
James Howard Jenkins, II pleaded guilty to a federal drug offense and expressly waived his right to appeal any sentence up to the statutory maximum. After being sentenced Mr. Jenkins promptly appealed and before us complains that the district court shouldn't have imposed a certain condition of supervised release. But the condition — which is of course part of his sentence, see United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th Cir.2007) — plainly lies within the scope of his appellate waiver, Mr. Jenkins never claims the waiver was not knowing or voluntary, and we discern no miscarriage of justice in enforcing it. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325-27 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc). This appeal is therefore dismissed.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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) and 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.