Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Heathington, 10th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Heathington, 10th Cir. (2014)
No. 14-3156
(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-20091-KHV-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
guidelines miscalculation and an excessive sentence; (2) Whether the court erred in
the calculation of loss, resulting in an excessive restitution order; and (3) Whether the
sentence imposed by the court is reasonable. Dktg. Stmt. at 4. The government has
moved to 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.
In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver 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.
In his counseled response opposing the motion to enforce, Mr. Heathington
maintains he received a below-Guidelines sentence and because the plea agreement
does not specifically mention such a sentence, his proposed appeal is outside the
scope of the waiver. He challenges the knowing-and-voluntary factor, arguing the
Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy was inadequate because there was no specific discussion
of the waiver of his right to appeal a below-Guidelines sentence. We reject these
arguments because they are built on the faulty foundation that the court imposed a
below-Guidelines sentence.
At the sentencing hearing, the court initially overruled an objection from Mr.
Heathingtons lawyer to the inclusion of a shoplifting conviction and an expunged
conviction in the Guideline calculations. It concluded that leaves us with a total
-2-
-4-