United States of America v. David A. Jackson, a/k/a Gerald David Jackson, a/k/a Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. JACKSON, a/k/a Gerald David
Jackson, a/k/a Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-8032
(D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00087-NDF-1)
(D. Wyo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, BRISCOE, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After David A. Jackson entered into a plea agreement that included a waiver of
his right to appeal, he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, willful failure to pay employment
taxes, and failure to file an individual tax return. He was sentenced to 46 months in
prison. Despite his waiver, he has filed a notice of appeal. The government has
moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315,
1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal waiver: “(1) whether the
disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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
July 29, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-8032 Document: 010110717752 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether
enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. In
response to the government’s motion, Mr. Jackson, through counsel, has stated that
he does not object to the dismissal of this appeal pursuant to Hahn.
We need not address the Hahn factors when the defendant does not dispute
them. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of
Mr. Jackson’s concession, the motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is
dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 22-8032 Document: 010110717752 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --