Court Opinion

ID: 9363791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 18:01:27.249296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.248417
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6145     Document: 010110798349       Date Filed: 01/17/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 17, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 22-6145
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:21-CR-00021-R-1)
  JAMIE SCOTT WILSON,                                        (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the

 appeal waiver in Jamie Scott Wilson’s plea agreement pursuant to United States v.

 Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Exercising jurisdiction

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

       Mr. Wilson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing detectable amount of

 methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers, a Schedule II controlled

 substance. As part of his plea agreement, he waived “the right to appeal [his] guilty

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-6145    Document: 010110798349        Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 2

 plea, and any other aspect of [his] conviction.” Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1 at 7. He

 also waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed, including “the manner in which

 the sentence is determined[,]” unless it is “above the advisory Guidelines range

 determined by the Court to apply” in his case. Id. Thus, the only issue he preserved

 for appellate review is the substantive reasonableness of an above-guideline

 sentence.1 By signing the plea agreement, Mr. Wilson acknowledged that he

 understood the consequences of his plea, including the sentences that could be

 imposed and that he was waiving his right to appeal his conviction and a within-

 guidelines sentence.

       At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court reminded Mr. Wilson of the

 possible sentences and broad appeal waiver, and he confirmed that he understood and

 that he wanted to plead guilty. Based on his responses to the court’s questions and its

 observations of his demeanor during the hearing, the court accepted his plea as

 having been knowingly and voluntarily entered. The court then sentenced

 Mr. Wilson to 360 months’ imprisonment. The sentence is at the bottom of the

 guidelines range, which the court determined was 360 to 480 months.

       Despite the broad appeal waiver and within-guidelines sentence, Mr. Wilson

 filed a notice of appeal. His docketing statement indicates that the issue he intends to

 raise on appeal is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

       1
          Mr. Wilson also waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction or
 sentence, but he reserved the right to raise a claim that he was prejudiced by
 ineffective assistance of counsel, subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or
 other applicable law.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-6145   Document: 010110798349        Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 3

       In ruling on a motion to enforce, we consider whether the appeal falls within

 the scope of the appeal waiver, whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily

 waived his right to appeal, and “whether enforcing the waiver would result in a

 miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.

       In response to the government’s motion to enforce, Mr. Wilson, through

 counsel, indicated that he “does not oppose the government’s motion to enforce the

 appellate waiver based on . . . Hahn.” Resp. to Mot. to Enforce at 1. By doing so, he

 conceded that the appeal waiver is enforceable under Hahn. In light of that

 concession, we need not analyze the Hahn factors. See United States v. Porter,

 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (court need not address uncontested Hahn

 factors). And, based on that concession and our review of the record, we grant the

 government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.2

                                            Entered for the Court
                                            Per Curiam

       2
        Regarding the order entered on October 20, 2022, the Clerk is directed to
 maintain the status of the record documents as they currently exist on the docket.

                                           3