Court Opinion

ID: 9942137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 16:02:37.478255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:42.775855
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2131     Document: 010111002477       Date Filed: 02/20/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 20, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-2131
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00451-KWR-1)
  ISAAC LANDOURS,                                              (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Isaac Landours pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 5 grams or more

 of methamphetamine. He was anticipating his sentencing guidelines range would be

 97 to 121 months in prison, but the presentence report applied the career offender

 enhancement and determined his sentencing guidelines range was 188 to 235 months

 in prison. Mr. Landours’s plea agreement contained a broad waiver of his right to

 appeal his sentence. Despite this waiver, Mr. Landours seeks to appeal the district

 court’s finding that a state conditional discharge was a conviction for purposes of

 calculating his criminal history and imposing the career offender enhancement. The

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-2131     Document: 010111002477       Date Filed: 02/20/2024    Page: 2

 government filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver pursuant to United States v.

 Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We grant the government’s

 motion and dismiss the appeal.

       Under Hahn, we consider the following three factors in determining whether to

 enforce an appeal waiver in a plea agreement: (1) does the disputed appeal fall

 within the scope of the waiver; (2) was the waiver knowing and voluntary; and

 (3) would enforcing the waiver result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. at 1325.

 Mr. Landours concedes his appeal falls within the scope of his waiver and his waiver

 was knowing and voluntary. He argues only that enforcing the waiver would result

 in a miscarriage of justice.

       In Hahn, we held enforcement of an appeal waiver does not result in a

 miscarriage of justice unless it would result in one of four enumerated situations.

 359 F.3d at 1327. Those four situations are: “[1] where the district court relied on

 an impermissible factor such as race, [2] where ineffective assistance of counsel in

 connection with the negotiation of the waiver renders the waiver invalid, [3] where

 the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, or [4] where the waiver is otherwise

 unlawful.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Landours contends enforcing

 his appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice because his trial counsel

 was constitutionally ineffective in negotiating his waiver.

       Mr. Landours acknowledges our general rule that a claim of ineffective

 assistance of counsel must be raised in a collateral proceeding, not on direct review.

 And he further acknowledges that this “rule applies when a defendant ‘seeks to

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-2131    Document: 010111002477         Date Filed: 02/20/2024    Page: 3

 invalidate an appellate waiver based on ineffective assistance of counsel.’” Aplt.

 Resp. to Mot. at 9 (quoting United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1144

 (10th Cir. 2005)).

       He argues, however, that his case presents an exception to the general rule

 based on his assertion that “the record is sufficiently developed as to trial counsel’s

 deficiencies.” Id. at 11. But he admits this court has only considered ineffective

 assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal in cases “‘where the issue was raised

 before and ruled upon by the district court and a sufficient factual record exists.’” Id.

 at 9 (quoting United States v. Flood, 635 F.3d 1255, 1260 (10th Cir. 2011)). And he

 concedes his case is distinguishable from those cases because he did not raise an

 ineffective assistance of counsel claim below so “the district court has not ruled on

 such a claim.” Id. at 11. He thus acknowledges “[t]he weight of the authority in this

 circuit suggests that this situation must result in the enforcement of the plea waiver.”

 Id. But he asks this court “to consider alternatives” because the significant disparity

 between the anticipated and recommended sentencing ranges “presents a manifest

 injustice.” Id.

       Although Mr. Landours insists “the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in

 negotiating the appeal waiver is apparent from the record,” id. at 16, we decline to

 expand the exception to include claims that were not presented first and ruled on in

 the district court. See United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240

 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (declining to consider ineffective assistance of counsel

 claim raised for the first time on direct appeal because “even if the record appears to

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-2131    Document: 010111002477         Date Filed: 02/20/2024    Page: 4

 need no further development, the claim should still be presented first to the district

 court in collateral proceedings . . . so the reviewing court can have the benefit of the

 district court’s views”). Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce

 the appellate waiver in Mr. Landours’s plea agreement and dismiss this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Per Curiam

                                             4