United States v. Jackson, No. 22-8032 (10th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 22-8032 Document: 010110717752 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 29, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID A. JACKSON, a/k/a Gerald David Jackson, a/k/a Gerald D. Roderick-Jackson, No. 22-8032 (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00087-NDF-1) (D. Wyo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before McHUGH, BRISCOE, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After David A. Jackson entered into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal, he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, willful failure to pay employment taxes, and failure to file an individual tax return. He was sentenced to 46 months in prison. Despite his waiver, he has filed a notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal waiver: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 22-8032 Document: 010110717752 Date Filed: 07/29/2022 Page: 2 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. In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Jackson, through counsel, has stated that he does not object to the dismissal of this appeal pursuant to Hahn. We need not address the Hahn factors when the defendant does not dispute them. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of Mr. Jackson’s concession, the motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is dismissed. 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.
