United States of America v. Jamie Scott Wilson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE SCOTT WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-6145
(D.C. No. 5:21-CR-00021-R-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 17, 2023
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-6145 Document: 010110798349 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

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.
Appellate Case: 22-6145 Document: 010110798349 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
Appellate Case: 22-6145 Document: 010110798349 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --