Court Opinion

ID: 9915968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 15:00:58.568871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:24:19.810212
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6130     Document: 010110980469       Date Filed: 01/09/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 9, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-6130
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00370-JD-1)
  ERIKA MAY FRANKLIN,                                         (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Erika May Franklin was charged with four counts related to drug trafficking.

 She entered into a plea agreement with the government, agreeing to plead guilty to

 one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises in exchange for the government

 agreeing to dismiss the remaining three counts. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines

 range was initially calculated to be 292 to 365 months in prison, but because the

 statutory maximum for that count was 20 years, the district court explained that the

 advisory Guidelines range would be 240 months. The district court then granted

 Ms. Franklin a significant downward variance, sentencing her to 96 months in prison.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-6130    Document: 010110980469        Date Filed: 01/09/2024      Page: 2

 Despite the appeal waiver in her plea agreement, Ms. Franklin filed an appeal. The

 government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in accordance with United States

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

       Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the

 scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and

 voluntarily waived [her] appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver

 would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government argues

 Ms. Franklin’s appeal falls within the scope of her waiver, her waiver was knowing

 and voluntary, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.

       Ms. Franklin’s counsel filed a response to the government’s motion to enforce

 pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there was no

 non-frivolous basis to oppose the motion and requesting permission to withdraw.

 Consistent with Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, this court gave Ms. Franklin the opportunity

 to file a pro se response, which she did. We have conducted an independent review

 of the proceedings as Anders requires, see id., and, as discussed below, we conclude

 there is no basis to allow Ms. Franklin to avoid enforcement of the waiver.

       We first examine “whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the

 waiver.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. In her docketing statement and pro se response,

 Ms. Franklin indicates she wants to challenge her sentence. But under the terms of

 her appeal waiver, she “waive[d] the right to appeal [her] sentence . . . and the

 manner in which the sentence is determined.” Mot. to Enf., Attach. 1 at 8. The only

 exception to the appeal waiver is “[i]f the sentence is above the advisory Guidelines

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-6130    Document: 010110980469         Date Filed: 01/09/2024   Page: 3

 range determined by the Court to apply to Defendant’s case.” Id. Ms. Franklin’s

 96-month sentence is well below the advisory Guidelines range of 240 months. Her

 appeal therefore falls within the scope of the waiver.

       We next ask “whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived [her]

 appellate rights.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. This requires us to examine (1) “whether

 the language of the plea agreement states that the defendant entered the agreement

 knowingly and voluntarily,” and (2) whether there was “an adequate Federal Rule of

 Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy.” Id.

       The plea agreement says expressly that Ms. Franklin knowingly and

 voluntarily waived her right to appeal. See Mot. to Enf., Attach. 1 at 8. And the

 Rule 11 colloquy was adequate. The district court reviewed with Ms. Franklin the

 waivers in her plea agreement, including the waiver of her right to appeal her

 sentence, and confirmed her understanding of those waivers. See id., Attach. 2 at

 25-28. We therefore conclude Ms. Franklin’s waiver was knowing and voluntary.

       Finally, we ask “whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of

 justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. We have explained that “enforcement of an

 appellate waiver does not result in a miscarriage of justice unless” it involves one of

 the following four situations: “the district court relied on an impermissible factor

 such as race,” “ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of

 the waiver renders the waiver invalid,” “the sentence exceeds the statutory

 maximum,” or “the waiver is otherwise unlawful.” Id. at 1327 (internal quotation

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-6130    Document: 010110980469         Date Filed: 01/09/2024   Page: 4

 marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude that enforcing the waiver

 will not result in a miscarriage of justice under this standard.

       We grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss

 this appeal. We also grant defense counsel’s request to withdraw.

                                              Entered for the Court
                                              Per Curiam

                                             4