United States v. Henderson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-6152
(D.C. No. 5:19-CR-00311-G-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Christopher John Henderson pled guilty to child sex trafficking, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), (c), and 1594(a). The district court sentenced him to
240 months’ imprisonment. Although his plea agreement contained a broad waiver
of his appellate rights, he seeks to challenge his sentence through this appeal. The
government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement under
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

November 12, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-6152 Document: 010110436499 Date Filed: 11/12/2020 Page: 1

2

voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would
result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government asserts that all of the
Hahn conditions have been satisfied: (1) Henderson’s appeal is within the scope of
the appeal waiver because his sentence was within the range contemplated by the
plea agreement; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and
(3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. In response to
the government’s motion, Henderson, through counsel, “acknowledges that his
appeal waiver is enforceable under the standards set out in” Hahn, and “agrees that
this appeal should be dismissed.” Resp. at 1.
Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant
the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We do so, however, without
prejudice to Henderson’s right to pursue post-conviction relief on the grounds
permitted in his plea agreement.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 20-6152 Document: 010110436499 Date Filed: 11/12/2020 Page: 2