Court Opinion

ID: 9925359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 16:01:06.119671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:02.577463
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6104     Document: 010110986258       Date Filed: 01/19/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 19, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-6104
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00110-SLP-1)
  DEONTAYE LONNITT FREDERICK,                                 (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Deontaye Lonnitt Frederick pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon

 and received a 96-month sentence. He has filed this appeal even though his plea

 agreement contained an appeal waiver.

       The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v.

 Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Frederick’s

 attorney has responded, opining that it would be frivolous to oppose the

 government’s motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We

 invited Mr. Frederick to respond himself, but he has not done so. Our duty in these

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-6104    Document: 010110986258       Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 2

 circumstances is to examine the record and decide whether opposing the

 government’s motion would indeed be frivolous. See id. We think it would.

       We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s

 scope, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and

 (3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Hahn,

 359 F.3d at 1325.

       Scope of the waiver. Mr. Frederick waived the right to appeal his conviction

 and sentence with one exception: He retained the right to challenge the substantive

 reasonableness of his sentence if it exceeded the advisory guidelines range. This

 exception does not apply, however, because his sentence fell within the guidelines

 range. And so his waiver covers this appeal.

       Knowing and voluntary waiver. To determine if a waiver was knowing and

 voluntary, we typically focus on two factors—whether the plea agreement says the

 defendant entered into it knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the district court

 conducted an adequate plea colloquy. See id.

       These factors show that Mr. Frederick knowingly and voluntarily waived his

 right to appeal. The plea agreement describes the waiver clearly and says expressly

 that Mr. Frederick’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. And during the plea

 colloquy, Mr. Frederick confirmed that he understood the plea agreement contained

 an appeal waiver, that he had discussed the waiver with his attorney, and that he

 understood the rights he was waiving. In short, the record leaves no room for him to

 argue his waiver was unknowing or involuntary.

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-6104     Document: 010110986258         Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 3

       Miscarriage of justice. Enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage

 of justice if (1) the district court relied on an impermissible sentencing factor;

 (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver makes it invalid;

 (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise

 unlawful, seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the

 proceedings. See id. at 1327. Nothing in the record suggests that enforcing

 Mr. Frederick’s waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice.

                                      *      *      *

       We grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. We grant the government’s

 motion to enforce the appeal waiver. We dismiss this appeal.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Per Curiam

                                             3