Court Opinion

ID: 9941608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 17:00:56.332881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:48.145257
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5118     Document: 010111001749       Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5118
                                                   (D.C. No. 4:22-CR-00112-GKF-3)
  ULYSSES SEMION WASHINGTON,                                  (N.D. Okla.)
  a/k/a Jaccpot, a/k/a Jack Pot,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Ulysses Semion Washington appeals from his conviction, but his plea

 agreement contains an appeal waiver. The government now moves to enforce that

 waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

 Through counsel, Washington opposes the motion. For the reasons that follow, we

 find Washington’s arguments unpersuasive and we grant the government’s motion.

       A grand jury in the Northern District of Oklahoma charged Washington with

 various offenses related to bribing a witness. The morning his trial was scheduled to

 begin, he asked for and received a plea deal from the government. Through that deal,

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-5118    Document: 010111001749         Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 2

 he agreed to plead guilty to one of the charges in exchange for the government

 dismissing the rest.

       Washington’s written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver: “The

 defendant waives the right to directly appeal the conviction and sentence pursuant to

 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); except that the defendant reserves the

 right to appeal from a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum.” R. vol. I at 30,

 § 3(a). Washington initialed this page of the agreement, see id., provided his full

 signature at the end of this section of the agreement (which covers both appellate and

 collateral review waivers), see id. at 31, and provided his full signature on the last

 page as well, see id. at 45. Finally, during the change-of-plea colloquy, the district

 court specifically reviewed the appeal waiver with Washington:

              THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering into
              this plea agreement with the government and by entering a
              plea of guilty, you will have waived, or given up, most of
              your rights to appeal and to collaterally attack all or part of
              your sentence?

              THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

              THE COURT: All right. Specifically, let me draw your
              attention to paragraph 3 of the plea agreement on page 3.
              In paragraph 3(a), you give up your right to directly appeal
              your conviction and sentence except you reserve the right
              to appeal from a sentence that exceeds the statutory
              maximum. Do you understand that, sir?

              THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

 R. vol. I at 74–75.

       The district court accepted the plea. A few weeks later, however, Washington

 filed a pro se motion to withdraw it. He claimed his plea had not been knowing and
                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-5118    Document: 010111001749       Date Filed: 02/16/2024       Page: 3

 voluntary due to miscommunication with his defense attorney, and due to the effects

 of medication.

       The district court held an evidentiary hearing and then issued a written order

 denying the motion. Later, at sentencing, the district court imposed a 108-month

 prison sentence. This appeal followed, and the government has now moved to

 dismiss based on the plea agreement’s appeal waiver.

       The government’s motion would normally require us to address three

 questions: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of

 appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his

 appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage

 of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. But we need not address a Hahn factor the

 defendant does not dispute. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143

 (10th Cir. 2005).

       Washington does not dispute any of the Hahn factors. Instead, he argues that

 appeal waivers cannot encompass a district court’s order denying a motion to

 withdraw the plea. Otherwise, he says, such an order becomes effectively

 unreviewable. Without citation to authority, he argues this violates “[b]asic notions

 of fairness and due process.” Resp. at 4.

       We have already rejected a materially identical argument. “[A]n appeal of a

 denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an attempt to contest a conviction on

 appeal, and thus falls within the plain language of the waiver provision.” United

 States v. Elliott, 264 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-5118      Document: 010111001749          Date Filed: 02/16/2024       Page: 4

 omitted). This means Washington “can contest his conviction by challenging the

 guilty plea, but only at the district court level. . . . [H]is waiver forecloses . . .

 appealing the district court’s decisions regarding his conviction and sentence,

 including its denial of [his] motion to withdraw his plea.” Id. To hold otherwise

 “would be to allow [Washington] to render a sham his promise not to [appeal] and

 would deprive the government of the benefit of its bargain.” Id.

        Because Washington offers no other argument against enforcement of his

 waiver, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Per Curiam

                                               4