United States v. Davis , 543 F. App'x 892 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS       Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      November 27, 2013
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                        No. 13-3246
    (D.C. No. 5:13-CR-40021-JAR-1)
    MARK DAVID DAVIS,                                           (D. Kan.)
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
    After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
    appeal, Mark David Davis pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex
    offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). He was sentenced to 33 months of
    imprisonment (with nine months of that term to be served concurrently with an
    anticipated state sentence) and three years of supervised release. The sentence fell at
    *
    This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
    case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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    is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
    the low end of the 33- to 41-month Guidelines range calculated by the district court,
    but it exceeded the sixteen-month sentence recommended by the parties.
    Notwithstanding the appeal waiver, Mr. Davis appealed, seeking to challenge
    the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The government has
    moved to enforce the waiver under United States v. Hahn, 
    359 F.3d 1315
    , 1325, 1328
    (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, through counsel, Mr. Davis has
    conceded that each of the three factors set forth in Hahn, 
    id. at 1325,
    is satisfied.
    And although we need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not contest,
    see United States v. Porter, 
    405 F.3d 1136
    , 1143 (10th Cir. 2005), our independent
    review confirms that all of the Hahn factors are satisfied.
    The motion to enforce is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
    Entered for the Court
    Per Curiam
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-3246

Citation Numbers: 543 F. App'x 892

Judges: Lucero, Hartz, Phillips

Filed Date: 11/27/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024