United States v. Barron
677 F. App'x 480
10th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Ricky Dale Barron was charged by information with two counts: being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and interstate transportation of illegally taken wildlife (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(2)).
- Barron entered a written plea agreement admitting guilt to both counts and expressly waived his right to appeal and seek post-conviction relief.
- The plea agreement and the information listed the charges and the potential penalties; the court read the plea and penalty range to Barron at the change-of-plea hearing, and Barron stated he understood.
- On appeal Barron challenged enforcement of the appellate waiver, arguing (in his reply brief) that the government added a charge after signing by citing 18 U.S.C. § 924(a).
- The panel treated the § 924(a) citation as a penalty-provision reference, not a new charge, and noted Barron raised that argument for the first time in his reply brief.
- The court concluded the appellate waiver was valid, knowingly and voluntarily made, fell within the scope of the agreement, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of appellate waiver | Gov: Waiver is valid and covers this appeal | Barron: Waiver invalid because the government added a § 924(a) charge after signing | Waiver enforced; appeal dismissed |
| Whether § 924(a) constituted a new charge | Gov: § 924(a) describes penalties for § 922(g)(1), not a new charge | Barron: § 924(a) addition altered charges post-agreement | Court: § 924(a) is penalty provision, not a new charge |
| Timeliness of appellate argument | Gov: Late arguments in reply are forfeited | Barron: Raised issue in reply as basis to avoid waiver | Court: Arguments raised first in reply need not be considered (forfeited) |
| Applicable exceptions to enforcing waiver (miscarriage of justice, involuntariness, scope) | Gov: None apply here | Barron: Implied claim that waiver was procedurally defective due to added charge | Court: No exception applies; waiver was knowing, voluntary, and within scope |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Chavez-Salais, 337 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003) (scope of plea agreement waivers construed against government)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (ambiguities in plea agreements read in favor of appellate rights)
- United States v. Atterberry, 144 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998) (enforcing lawful plea agreements)
- United States v. Elliott, 264 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2001) (miscarriage-of-justice exceptions to waiver enforcement)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error and related procedural-default principles)