United States v. Mitchell, No. 17-5056 (10th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 28, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL DAVID MITCHELL, II, No. 17-5056 (D.C. No. 4:16-CR-00150-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After entering into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Paul David Mitchell, II, pleaded guilty to bank robbery, interference with interstate commerce, and firearm offenses. Although the parties agreed to a 28-year sentence, Mitchell acknowledged in the agreement that he waived the right to appeal any sentence below the statutory maximum. The district court sentenced him to 28 years’ imprisonment, which was below the statutory maximum. Despite the waiver, Mitchell has filed a notice of appeal to challenge the sentence. Dktg. Stmt. at 3. The * This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 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). In response, Mitchell’s counsel says he “cannot claim any legally viable basis that the government’s [motion to enforce] should be denied.” Resp. at 4. This court gave Mitchell an opportunity to file a pro se response to the motion to enforce. There has been no response. We have reviewed the motion to enforce and the record and conclude that Mitchell’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors to consider when determining whether to enforce an appellate waiver). We grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 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.
