United States v. McLean

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 17, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-5070
(D.C. No. 4:17-CR-00031-CVE-1)
ROBERT LEE MCLEAN, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, O’BRIEN, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
appeal, Robert Lee McLean pleaded guilty to improper use of another’s passport and
aggravated identity theft. Pursuant to the appeal waiver in the agreement, McLean
waived the right to directly appeal the conviction and sentence, except that he
reserved the right to appeal from a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum.
He was sentenced to a thirty-month term of imprisonment, which is below the
statutory maximum. Despite the waiver, he appealed. The government has moved to
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist in 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Whether an appeal waiver is enforceable is a question of law. United States v.
Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218, 1221 (10th Cir. 2008). Under Hahn, we evaluate a
motion to enforce a waiver by considering “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls
within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the
waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” 359 F.3d at 1325. “The burden
rests with the defendant to demonstrate that the appeal waiver results in a miscarriage
of justice.” United States v. Anderson, 374 F.3d 955, 959 (10th Cir. 2004).
McLean first argues that his motion to withdraw his plea is outside the scope
of the waiver, but he does not dispute that his sentence is below the statutory
maximum. He next argues that the waiver was not made knowingly or voluntarily
because he entered the plea agreement just two weeks after he was arrested and
charged and because he had expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel, but he does
not dispute that he was fully advised of and understood his rights when he entered
into the plea agreement. Finally, he argues that a miscarriage of justice resulted
because he did not have the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss one of the
charges, but he does not argue that this case presents any of the four exclusive
situations where enforcing an appeal waiver results in a miscarriage of justice. See
United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991, 1001 (10th Cir. 2011).
2
Based on our review of the record and McLean’s arguments in response to the
government’s motion to enforce, he has not met his burden. Therefore, the motion is
granted, and this appeal is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3