United States v. Duncan

Appellate Case: 25-6138 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6138 (D.C. No. 5:25-CR-00014-SLP-1) JACKIE ANTONIO DUNCAN, a/k/a D, (W.D. Okla.) a/k/a Antonio, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jackie Antonio Duncan pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking of children and aiding and abetting the same. The district court sentenced him to months in prison, which was within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of months to life.

Duncan seeks to appeal his sentence. The government filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Duncan’s counsel responded, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stated

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

Appellate Case: 25-6138 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 2 there is no non-frivolous basis to oppose the government’s motion, and moved to withdraw from representing Duncan. Consistent with the procedure outlined in Anders, we invited Duncan to file his own response to show why we should not enforce the appeal waiver, but he has not done so.

Under these circumstances, our duty is to examine the record and decide whether opposing the government’s motion would indeed be frivolous. See id. 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 Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.

Scope of the waiver. Duncan seeks to appeal his sentence, but he waived the right to appeal unless his sentence exceeded the Sentencing Guidelines range.

Because his sentence was within the Sentencing Guidelines range, Duncan’s waiver covers this appeal. 1 Knowing and voluntary waiver. The plea agreement and the plea colloquy show that Duncan knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.

Miscarriage of justice. Enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice only if: (1) the district court relied on an impermissible factor, such as race; (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

The waiver also carved out an exception for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We take no position on claims other than the one Duncan presents on appeal, which plainly falls within the waiver’s scope.

Appellate Case: 25-6138 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/27/2026 Page: 3 unlawful in a way that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id. at 1327. Nothing in the record suggests that enforcing the appeal waiver will cause a miscarriage of justice.

We grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as Duncan’s attorney.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam