Court Opinion

ID: 9383390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:00:39.374522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:45.245933
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6208     Document: 010110835357       Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 22-6208
                                                      (D.C. No. 5:20-CR-197-G-1)
  JUAN JABARI HOLLIS,                                        (W.D. Okla.)
  a/k/a Juan Jabari Shinault,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Juan Jabari Hollis pleaded guilty to witness tampering and being a felon in

 possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to a 120-month prison term

 on the felon-in-possession charge, concurrent with a 150-month prison term (the high

 end of the guidelines range) on the witness-tampering charge. He has appealed from

 that sentence, 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).

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-6208    Document: 010110835357         Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 2

       When deciding a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, we normally ask:

 “(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.”

 Id. at 1325. But we need not address any Hahn factor the defendant does not contest.

 See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). Hollis concedes

 the first two factors, so we will proceed directly to the miscarriage-of-justice factor.

       In this context, a miscarriage of justice occurs “[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.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (bracketed numerals in original;

 internal quotation marks omitted). Hollis argues that the fourth possibility

 (“otherwise unlawful”) applies to him. He says the district court incorrectly

 overruled some of his sentencing objections, and, as a result, miscalculated the

 offense level, leading to an erroneously inflated guidelines range.

       “[Hollis] misunderstands the miscarriage of justice exception to enforcement

 of a waiver of appellate rights. This exception looks to whether the waiver is

 otherwise unlawful, not to whether another aspect of the proceeding may have

 involved legal error.” United States v. Smith, 500 F.3d 1206, 1212–13 (10th Cir.

 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, Hollis expressly

 waived the right to appeal “the manner in which the sentence is determined.” Mot. to

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-6208   Document: 010110835357        Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 3

 Enforce Appellate Waiver, Attach. 1 at 9, ¶ 15(b). “To allow alleged errors in

 computing a defendant’s sentence to render a waiver unlawful would nullify the

 waiver based on the very sort of claim it was intended to waive.” Smith, 500 F.3d

 at 1213.

       For these reasons, we reject Hollis’s miscarriage-of-justice challenge, grant the

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

                                            Entered for the Court
                                            Per Curiam

                                           3