Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jeremy Lee SESTAK, Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver in Jeremy Lee Sestak’s plea agreement. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Sestak pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and attempted distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), and one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He was sentenced to serve 180 months in prison.
Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, Mr. Sestak filed a notice of appeal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver pursuant to 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. The government asserts that all of the Hahn conditions have been satisfied because Mr. Sestak’s appeal is within the scope of the appeal waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Sestak, through counsel, concedes his appeal waiver is enforceable under the standard set forth in Hahn. Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that court need not address uncontested Hahn factors).
Per Curiam
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-8062
Decided: February 19, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)