Court Opinion

ID: 9901377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 18:01:48.125045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.691766
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8047     Document: 010110956536       Date Filed: 11/21/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        November 21, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-8047
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00080-SWS-1)
  GEORGE DANIEL NITCHMAN,                                      (D. Wyo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       George Daniel Nitchman pleaded guilty to possession of more than 50 grams

 of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), and

 received a 110-month prison sentence. He has appealed from that sentence. His plea

 agreement contains an appeal waiver, which the government now seeks to enforce

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

 (per curiam). Mr. Nitchman’s counsel responds that he is not aware of any

 non-frivolous argument for overcoming the waiver, and he has moved to withdraw.

 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-8047     Document: 010110956536        Date Filed: 11/21/2023     Page: 2

        By letter dated September 27, 2023, this court gave Mr. Nitchman until

 October 18, 2023, to file a pro se response, if desired. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

 (“A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him

 to raise any points that he chooses . . . .”). He filed nothing by that date, so the court

 issued a deficiency notice and directed Mr. Nitchman to file a response by November

 2. His response was received on November 7. Despite its having been filed late, we

 will consider Mr. Nitchman’s response as we make “a full examination of all the

 proceedings[] to decide whether [opposition to the government’s motion] is wholly

 frivolous.” Id.

        In evaluating a motion to enforce an appellate waiver, 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 his appellate

 rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

 Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.

        The record shows that each of these factors is satisfied. First, Mr. Nitchman’s

 appeal is within the scope of the waiver. On appeal, he seeks to challenge the base

 offense level the district court used to determine the applicable Sentencing

 Guidelines range. Pro Se Resp. at 1. But the plea agreement stated that

 Mr. Nitchman waived his right to appeal, among other things, “any matter in

 connection with . . . the components of his sentence,” unless his sentence exceeded

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-8047     Document: 010110956536        Date Filed: 11/21/2023      Page: 3

 the applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.1 Mot. to Enforce at 3. Because

 Mr. Nitchman’s sentence was well within the advisory Guidelines range, he has

 waived the right to challenge it.

       Second, the plea agreement clearly sets forth that the waiver was knowing and

 voluntary, and during the change of plea hearing the district court confirmed

 Mr. Nitchman’s understanding that his guilty plea would result in his waiving his

 appellate rights. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325 (on second factor, the court looks to

 whether the plea agreement states the waiver was knowing and voluntary and whether

 there was a sufficient Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy). Mr. Nitchman

 does not argue otherwise. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143

 (10th Cir. 2005) (where defendant does not contest the district court’s determination

 that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the court need not

 address the issue).

       Finally, we see no risk of a miscarriage of justice if the appellate waiver is

 enforced. A miscarriage of justice occurs only:

       [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.

       1
          The waiver also contemplated that Mr. Nitchman could raise claims of
 ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
 or seek a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). These exceptions do not
 apply here. Mr. Nitchman’s response indicates that he believes his attorney provided
 ineffective assistance, but such “claims should be brought in collateral proceedings,
 not on direct appeal.” United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir.
 1995).
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-8047    Document: 010110956536        Date Filed: 11/21/2023    Page: 4

 Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of these situations

 is applicable. First, there is no evidence that Mr. Nitchman’s race or another

 impermissible factor had anything to do with his sentence. Second, although

 Mr. Nitchman has complained about his counsel’s performance, nothing at this stage

 of the proceedings indicates he received ineffective assistance in connection with the

 negotiation of the waiver. Indeed, under the original charges Mr. Nitchman faced a

 possible sentence of up to 40 years, but his counsel negotiated a plea deal resulting in

 a much lower sentence (slightly over 9 years) that was at the bottom of the range

 called for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Third, Mr. Nitchman’s sentence did not

 exceed the 40-year statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Fourth, there

 is no indication that Mr. Nitchman’s waiver is “otherwise unlawful.” Hahn, 359 F.3d

 at 1327. In short, we find the enforcement of Mr. Nitchman’s appellate waiver would

 not result in a miscarriage of justice as defined by Hahn.

       We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s

 motion to enforce the appeal waiver, and dismiss this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court
                                             Per Curiam

                                            4