United States v. Davis

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1395 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 9, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-1395 (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00016-RMR-1) ELEKE DAVIS, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Eleke Davis pled guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter under

18 U.S.C. § 1112. The district court sentenced him to 63 months (or 5 years and

3 months) in prison, which was below the statutory maximum sentence of 8 years in

prison for this offense. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his

appellate rights, Davis filed a notice of appeal. The government then filed a motion

to enforce the appeal waiver pursuant to 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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1395 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2025 Page: 2

Davis’s counsel filed a response to the motion, citing Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and stating that “[t]here is no meritorious basis for

opposing the [m]otion,” Resp. at 7. Consistent with Anders, id. at 744, we gave

Davis the opportunity to file a pro se response to the government’s motion. His

response was initially due on April 14, 2025, and we sua sponte extended the

deadline to April 30, 2025, but to date he has not filed a response.

We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the”

waiver’s scope; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate

rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not “result in a miscarriage of justice.”

Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. The government argues that all three of these conditions are

met in this case.

Consistent with our obligation under Anders, we fully examined all the

proceedings. See 386 U.S. at 744. After doing so, we agree there is no meritorious

basis to oppose the government’s motion. We therefore grant the government’s

motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw as Davis’s attorney.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam