United States v. Meigs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 24-7006
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-7006 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 23, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-7006 (D.C. No. 6:23-CR-00046-KS-1) TYLER AARON MEIGS, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Tyler Aaron Meigs pled guilty to one count of possessing methamphetamine

with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C),

and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The district court sentenced him to 63 months’

imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. Although his plea

agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, Meigs filed a notice of appeal.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-7006 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2024 Page: 2

The government did not file a motion to enforce the appeal waiver, but it raises the

waiver in its merits brief. See 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(3)(c) (“Failure to file a timely

motion to enforce an appeal waiver does not preclude a party from raising the issue

in a merits brief.”).1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we enforce the

appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal.

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

scope of the waiver”; (2) “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his

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

justice.” United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

The government argues that all three of these conditions are met in this case. We

agree.

Meigs’s appellate argument is that the district court plainly erred by ordering

the two 63-month sentences to run consecutively without considering the Sentencing

Guidelines’ recommendation that they run concurrently and not adequately

explaining why it did so. But Meigs agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence

unless it “exceeds the statutory maximum.” R. vol. I at 18. And even viewed

cumulatively as 126 months’ imprisonment, Meigs’s sentences did not exceed either

of the applicable statutory minimums. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C)

(20-year maximum term of imprisonment for possession of methamphetamine with

1 In his opening brief, Meigs did not address his appeal waiver other than to note the government had not filed a motion to enforce. Meigs did not file a reply brief. 2 Appellate Case: 24-7006 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2024 Page: 3

intent to distribute); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8) (15-year maximum term of

imprisonment for felon in possession of firearm). Thus, his appeal falls within the

scope of the waiver.

Next, we conclude Meigs has not met his burden to show his waiver was not

knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204, 1207

(10th Cir. 2007) (defendant bears the burden to show an appeal waiver was not

knowing and voluntary). In assessing whether an appeal waiver “is knowing and

voluntary, we especially look to two factors”: (1) “whether the language of the plea

agreement states that the defendant entered the agreement knowingly and

voluntarily,” and (2) whether the district court conducted “an adequate Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Meigs advances no

argument on this point, and our review reveals that both factors are met in this case.

Finally, enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice only

if (1) “the district court relied on an impermissible situation such as race”;

(2) “ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the waiver

renders the waiver invalid”; (3) “the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum”; or

(4) “the waiver is otherwise unlawful.” Id. at 1327; see also United States v. Shockey,

538 F.3d 1355, 1357 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that this “list is exclusive” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

Here, the first and third miscarriage-of-justice exceptions are not present, and

Meigs has not argued ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the waiver’s

negotiation. As for the fourth exception, it is satisfied only if an error “seriously affect[s]

3 Appellate Case: 24-7006 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2024 Page: 4

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Hahn, 359 F.3d

at 1327 (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant inquiry is “whether the waiver

is otherwise unlawful, not . . . whether another aspect of the sentencing proceeding may

have involved legal error.” United States v. Holzer, 32 F.4th 875, 887 (10th Cir. 2022)

(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Meigs bears the burden on this

exception, see id., but he has provided no argument that the waiver itself was otherwise

unlawful. Nor is any unlawfulness readily apparent. We therefore conclude that the

otherwise-unlawful exception is inapplicable and that enforcing Meigs’s appeal waiver

will not result in a miscarriage of justice.

III. CONCLUSION

We enforce Meigs’s appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge