Court Opinion

ID: 9950558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 15:02:12.9197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:25.107048
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5117     Document: 010111015760       Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 14, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5117
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:22-CR-00083-JFH-1)
  JESSE RAY MATLOCK,                                          (N.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Jesse Ray Matlock pled guilty to three counts of strangulation of a spouse, one

 count of obstruction of justice, and one count of stalking. The district court

 sentenced Mr. Matlock to 120 months in prison, which was the stipulated sentence

 the parties agreed to in the plea agreement. Although he received the sentence he

 negotiated and although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights,

 he filed a notice of appeal. The government then filed a motion to enforce the appeal

 waiver.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
Appellate Case: 23-5117      Document: 010111015760          Date Filed: 03/14/2024      Page: 2

        Mr. Matlock’s counsel filed a response to the motion pursuant to Anders v.

 California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating his belief “that there is no viable or

 non-frivolous basis for opposing the Motion.” Resp. to Mot. at 5. We gave

 Mr. Matlock the opportunity to file a pro se response to show why the appeal waiver

 should not be enforced. His response was initially due on February 22, 2024, and we

 sua sponte extended the deadline to March 11, 2024, but to date he has not filed a

 response.

        We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within” the

 waiver’s scope; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate

 rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not “result in a miscarriage of justice.”

 United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The government

 argues that all three of these conditions are met in this case.

        Consistent with our obligation under Anders, we conducted an independent

 review of the proceedings. See 386 U.S. at 744. After doing so, we agree it would

 be frivolous to oppose the government’s motion. We therefore grant the

 government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.

                                                Entered for the Court
                                                Per Curiam

                                               2