United States v. Davis, 17-4040

Defendant Robert Aaron Davis pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement stipulating a 120-month sentence.
The plea agreement included a broad appellate waiver of the right to appeal “any sentence imposed,” explicitly defining “sentence” to include restitution orders.
At sentencing, two victims sought restitution (each indicating $1,000–$3,000 would suffice); a third victim withdrew a claim.
Davis asked the court to limit restitution to $1,000 per victim due to age, lengthy incarceration, and financial hardship; the court ordered $2,000 to each of the two claimants.
Davis appealed only the restitution portion, arguing the district court failed to explain the causal basis for the restitution amounts under Paroline.
The government moved to enforce the appellate waiver under the Hahn framework; the Tenth Circuit reviewed waiver enforceability de novo and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of appellate waiver	Government: Waiver covers sentence and restitution; should be enforced per Hahn	Davis: Restitution order violates Paroline; appeal should proceed despite waiver	Enforced. Waiver valid and covers restitution.
Whether waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made	Government: Plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy show a knowing, voluntary waiver	Davis: (implied) contesting restitution despite prior waiver; no reply brief filed	Knowing & voluntary — defendant signed agreement and acknowledged at plea hearing that restitution could be imposed and that he waived appeal rights.
Whether enforcing waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Government: No miscarriage — no impermissible factors, no ineffective assistance shown, sentence within statutory max	Davis: Argues legal error in restitution (Paroline) — not raised as a basis for invalidating waiver	No miscarriage of justice — no impermissible factor, no shown counsel ineffectiveness in negotiating waiver, sentence lawful; alleged sentencing error does not itself invalidate waiver.
Scope of waiver relative to restitution	Government: Agreement defined “sentence” to include restitution orders	Davis: Sought to challenge restitution amount despite definition	Waiver scope includes restitution orders; appeal falls within waiver.

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (establishes three-factor test for enforcing appeal waivers)
United States v. Leyva-Matos, 618 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2010) (review standard: enforceability of appeal waiver reviewed de novo)
United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (defines circumstances that create miscarriage of justice that can invalidate a waiver)
Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (addresses causal basis for restitution in child-exploitation context)
United States v. Rollings, 751 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (defendant’s knowledge that restitution may be imposed suffices for knowing waiver)