FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 24, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-6206
(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00341-F-1)
WILLIAM VONTRAIL JOHNSON, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, EBEL, MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After entering into a plea agreement containing a waiver of appellate rights,
William Vontrail Johnson pled guilty to one count of child sex trafficking. As part of
the agreement, the government promised to recommend a sentence of no more than
30 years, which it did. Mr. Johnson, in turn, agreed to waive his right to appeal his
guilty plea and sentence, unless the court imposed a sentence higher than the
guidelines range. The district court determined that the appropriate guidelines range
was 324-405 months and, following the government’s recommendation, imposed a
*
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
360-month sentence. Despite having waived his right to appeal a sentence within the
guidelines range, Mr. Johnson filed an appeal to challenge his sentence. The
government then moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Johnson’s counsel stated that the
appeal was wholly frivolous because it was clearly barred by the appeal waiver and
there was no basis for claiming that the sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable. Counsel also moved to withdraw. We gave Mr. Johnson
notice of his counsel’s response and an opportunity to file his own response. The
deadline for doing so has long passed, and we have received no response from
Mr. Johnson.
Accordingly, we have independently reviewed the record in light of the
parties’ filings to decide whether an opposition to the government’s motion to
enforce is “wholly frivolous,” Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). As
part of our review, we have independently considered the relevant factors governing
the enforcement of an appeal waiver, namely “(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.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. We agree
with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous; Mr. Johnson cannot
assert any non-frivolous argument that would support a determination that the appeal
waiver does not bar his challenge to his sentence.
2
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver
and dismiss this appeal. We also grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3