The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-4016•United States of America v. Lawrence Paul Herring
21-4016Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitApr 1, 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE PAUL HERRING,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-4016
(D.C. No. 2:15-CR-00743-TS-1)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Lawrence Paul Herring pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The
district court imposed a prison term below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
Although Mr. Herring’s plea agreement included a broad waiver of his appellate
rights, he has filed a notice of appeal. The government moves to enforce the appeal
waiver and dismiss this appeal under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
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
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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
April 1, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-4016 Document: 010110502052 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1
-- 1 of 2 --
2
appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not “result in a miscarriage of
justice.” Id. at 1325. The government argues that all three of these circumstances
exist in this case.
Mr. Herring’s counsel has responded, stating that she “is unaware of any basis
to oppose” the government’s motion. Aplt. Resp. at 1. We need not address a Hahn
prong that a defendant does not dispute. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136,
1143 (2005). Because Mr. Herring does not dispute any of the Hahn prongs, we
enforce his appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-4016 Document: 010110502052 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.