United States vs. Hopkins, No. 06-3192 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS October 4, 2006 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-3192 (D.C. No. 05-CR-10147-01-M LB) (D . Kan.) JASON HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before H E N RY, L UC ER O, and M U RPH Y, Circuit Judges. The government has filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement with defendant Jason Hopkins. In the agreement, M r. Hopkins w aived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence on the charge of possession of pseudoephedrine w ith intent to manufacture methamphetamine. M r. Hopkins attorney responded, conceding that the appeal waiver is enforceable. Counsel * This panel has determined unanimously 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. indicated his intent to file an Anders 1 brief, should the appeal proceed. Consequently, this court afforded M r. Hopkins an opportunity to file an opposition to the government s enforcement motion. He did not respond. This court will enforce a criminal defendant s waiver of his right to appeal so long as the following three elements are satisfied: (1) the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the w aiver of appellate rights, (2) the defendant s waiver of his appellate rights was knowing and voluntary, and (3) enforcing the waiver w ill not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). W e have carefully reviewed the plea agreement and the transcript of the hearing at which M r. Hopkins entered his guilty plea. W e conclude that the Hahn factors have been satisfied. Accordingly, we GRANT the government s motion to enforce the plea agreement and DISM ISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
