Court Opinion

ID: 9915516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 17:00:51.480011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:02.683058
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5073     Document: 010110978918       Date Filed: 01/05/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 5, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5073
                                                   (D.C. No. 4:21-CR-00549-GKF-1)
  SETH JAMES PALMER,                                          (N.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, EBEL, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Seth James Palmer pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder in

 Indian country and to discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He

 received a 171-month sentence. He appeals even though his plea agreement

 contained an appeal waiver. The government has moved to enforce the waiver. See

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

 Mr. Palmer’s attorney has responded, saying it would be frivolous to oppose the

 government’s motion and, for that reason, moving to withdraw. See Anders v.

 California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited Mr. Palmer to respond himself, but

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-5073     Document: 010110978918      Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 2

 he has not done so. Our duty in these 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. Palmer waived “the right to directly appeal the

 conviction and sentence” unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Mot.

 to Enforce, Attach. 1 at 3. He faced a maximum of 20 years on the assault count and

 a maximum of life on the discharging-a-firearm count. His sentence on each count

 fell below the statutory maximum, so this appeal falls within the scope of his waiver.

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

 voluntary, we typically focus on two sources—the plea agreement and the plea

 colloquy. See United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d 867, 872 (10th Cir. 2003).

       The plea agreement contains strong evidence that Mr. Palmer waived his

 appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. It describes the appeal waiver in plain

 language. And Mr. Palmer asserted in the agreement that his attorney had explained

 his appellate rights, that he understood those rights, and that he knowingly and

 voluntarily waived them.

       During the plea colloquy, however, the district court failed to inform

 Mr. Palmer of “the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-5073     Document: 010110978918        Date Filed: 01/05/2024      Page: 3

 appeal.”1 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). That failure was error. See Edgar, 348 F.3d

 at 871.

       Even with the faulty plea colloquy, however, the record leaves no room for

 Mr. Palmer to argue that his waiver was invalid. The plea agreement itself all but

 forecloses such an argument. And nothing in the record suggests that, despite the

 language in the plea agreement, Mr. Palmer’s waiver was unknowing or involuntary.

 Indeed, under similar circumstances, we have held that a defendant’s appeal waiver

 was knowing and voluntary. See id. at 872–73.

       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 Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327.

       According to his attorney, Mr. Palmer believes he received ineffective

 assistance from his plea counsel. But “a defendant must generally raise claims of

 ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral proceeding, not on direct review.

 This rule applies even where a defendant seeks to invalidate an appellate waiver

       1
         Although the district court failed to discuss the waiver’s terms with
 Mr. Palmer at the plea hearing, the government noted when summarizing the plea
 agreement that it contained “appellate and postconviction waivers.” Mot. to Enforce,
 Attach. 2 at 9. Mr. Palmer then said that the government’s summary was consistent
 with his understanding of the agreement.
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-5073    Document: 010110978918        Date Filed: 01/05/2024   Page: 4

 based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136,

 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We see no reason to depart from that

 general rule here. Nor do we see anything in the record otherwise suggesting that

 enforcing the appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice.

                                     *      *      *

       We agree with Mr. Palmer’s attorney that opposing the government’s motion

 to enforce would be frivolous. We therefore grant his motion to withdraw. We also

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

                                             Entered for the Court
                                             Per Curiam

                                            4