FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 24, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-3061
(D.C. No. 5:16-CR-40097-DDC-1)
KWMANE DEON MAYS, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Kwmane Deon Mays accepted a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement
and pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to time served and three years of
supervised release. But he violated the terms of his supervised release, and the
district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twelve months and
one day of imprisonment and another eighteen months of supervised release.
Although his plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Mr. Mays appealed from
the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. The government moves
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
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. We need not address a Hahn factor
that the appellant does not contest. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143
(10th Cir. 2005).
In his response to the government’s motion, Mr. Mays, through counsel, states
that he does not object to the enforcement of the appeal waiver as to this direct
appeal. He does not contest any of the Hahn factors. Accordingly, the motion to
enforce is granted, and this matter is terminated.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
2