United States v. Teeter

Appellate Case: 24-1196 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 1

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 16, 2024

_________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-1196

(D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00356-RM-15) RAYO COSMOPOLITINA TEETER, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ Rayo Teeter’s plea agreement included a broad waiver of her appellate rights. Yet she appeals her sentence. The government moves to enforce her appeal waiver. Her attorney responded, concluding the waiver should be enforced and moving to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited Ms. Teeter to respond herself, but she has not done so. Our duty in these circumstances is to examine the record and decide whether opposing the government’s motion would be frivolous. We think it would.

Appellate Case: 24-1196 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 12/16/2024 Page: 2

We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s scope, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and (3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

Scope of the waiver. Ms. Teeter waived “the right to appeal any matter in connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence.” Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1 at 2–3. The waiver has three exceptions, but none applies. And so the waiver covers this appeal.

Knowing and voluntary waiver. The plea agreement and the plea colloquy show that Ms. Teeter knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

Miscarriage of justice. Enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice if (1) the district court relied on an impermissible sentencing factor; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver makes it invalid; (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise unlawful in a way that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. We see nothing suggesting that enforcing the waiver here will result in a miscarriage of justice.

* * *

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver. We dismiss this appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam