United States v. Laverty

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 9, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff − Appellee,
v. No. 15-5083
(D.C. No. 4:15-CR-00074-CVE-1)
BILLY JOE LAVERTY, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant − Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Billy Joe Laverty was charged with two counts of Interference with Commerce
by Robbery, Carjacking, and Discharging a Firearm During and in Relation to a
Crime of Violence. He entered into a plea agreement with the government, which
contained a waiver of his appellate rights. After he pleaded guilty pursuant to the
agreement, he was sentenced to a stipulated sentence of 300 months of imprisonment.
Despite the appellate waiver in his plea agreement, Mr. Laverty filed a notice of
*
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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
appeal. The government then filed a motion to enforce the appellate waiver in
Mr. Laverty’s plea agreement consistent with the procedures outlined in our decision
in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004).
Under Hahn, we consider: “(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 . . . .” Id. at 1325. Mr. Laverty has filed a response
to the motion to enforce in which he “concedes that, under the standard announced in
[Hahn], the appellate waiver in his plea agreement is enforceable.” Aplt. Resp. at 1.
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
-2-