United States v. Anderson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 25-5075
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5075 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 25, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-5075 (D.C. No. 4:23-CR-00318-JDR-3) TASHONNA LEIGH ANDERSON, (N.D. Okla.) a/k/a “Isyss,”

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A grand jury indicted Appellant Tashonna Leigh Anderson for

kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), Hobbs Act robbery in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and carrying, using, and brandishing a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.

*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-5075 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2026 Page: 2

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c),

Ms. Anderson pleaded guilty to a single count of misprision of a felony in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. The district court sentenced her to 27 months’

imprisonment. Ms. Anderson now appeals her sentence. Exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude Ms. Anderson waived her

right to bring this appeal and dismiss the case.

After entering her appearance, Ms. Anderson entered a Rule 11(c)

plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. During the change-of-plea

hearing, the district judge performed a thorough Rule 11 plea colloquy

addressing each right Ms. Anderson agreed to give up by signing the plea

agreement. Ms. Anderson affirmed she knowingly and voluntarily entered

into the plea agreement. She acknowledged she faced a statutory maximum

of three years’ imprisonment. And she affirmed she understood the

provisions of the plea agreement – including waiving her right to appeal her

sentence unless sentenced above the statutory maximum.

At sentencing, the government moved for a downward departure

under United States Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1. The district court

denied the motion and sentenced Ms. Anderson to 27 months’ imprisonment

– a sentence below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 4.

Ms. Anderson now appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying

the motion for a downward departure. The government contends

2 Appellate Case: 25-5075 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2026 Page: 3

Ms. Anderson’s appeal is barred by her appeal waiver in the plea

agreement. 1 We agree with the government.

When deciding whether an appellate waiver is enforceable, we must

determine “(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.” United States v. Holzer, 32

F.4th 875, 881 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Ms. Anderson does not challenge the government’s contention that

she waived her appellate rights, and the record is clear that (1) this appeal

is within the scope of her appeal waiver; (2) she knowingly and voluntarily

waived the right to appeal her sentence if it did not exceed the statutory

maximum; and (3) nothing in the record suggests the district court relied

on an impermissible factor or that enforcing the waiver would result in a

miscarriage of justice.

1 The government sought leave to file an untimely motion to enforce

the appeal waiver. Dkt. No. 14. This court denied the government leave because it did not show “good cause” for its failure to timely file its motion. Dkt. No. 18. The government then raised the appellate waiver issue in the merits brief, as allowed by Tenth Circuit Rule 27.3(A)(3)(d). 3 Appellate Case: 25-5075 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2026 Page: 4

We conclude the appellate waiver is valid and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge