Summary
The Tenth Circuit enforced an appeal waiver in a drug and firearm case, dismissing the appeal under the *Hahn* factors. The court held the waiver was knowing and voluntary, the appeal fell within its scope, and enforcing it did not result in a miscarriage of justice—even though the district court had vacated and reinstated the judgment to restore appellate rights after an ineffective-assistance claim regarding failure to consult on appeal. The defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument did not invalidate the waiver because it concerned post-sentencing consultation, not the negotiation of the waiver itself.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver.
- Whether Greenley knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights.
- Whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, particularly in light of the district court's grant of his § 2255 motion.
Holdings
- The appeal waiver is enforceable because the appeal falls within its scope, the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and enforcement would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Key quotations
“the district court did not find that his 'attorney was ineffective in negotiating the plea waiver.'” (4)
“This rule applies even where a defendant seeks to invalidate an appellate waiver based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” (5)
“Having reviewed the proceedings in accordance with our obligation under Anders, see 386 U.S. at 744, we conclude that the Hahn factors have been met and that there is no non-frivolous argument to make against enforcing the appeal waiver.” (3)
Factual background
Greenley was indicted on five counts including drug and firearm offenses. He entered into a written plea agreement, pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the government agreed to dismiss the other counts and recommend a sentence reduction. The agreement included a waiver of appellate rights. The district court sentenced him to 120 months. Greenley later filed a § 2255 motion, claiming his counsel was ineffective for not consulting with him about an appeal or filing a notice of appeal. The district court granted the motion, vacated and reinstated the judgment, and appointed appellate counsel. Greenley then attempted to appeal the denial of his suppression motion and sentencing enhancements. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver.
Procedural history
Greenley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. He was sentenced to 120 months. He later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to consult or file a notice of appeal. The district court granted the motion, vacated and reinstated the judgment, and appointed appellate counsel. Greenley then filed a notice of appeal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver. The Tenth Circuit considered the motion under United States v. Hahn and Anders.