United States v. Wilson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: January 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-6145
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.