United States v. Frazier-LeFear, 665 F. App'x 727

Background

Tanya Lea Frazier-LeFear pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base; her plea agreement contained an express waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally challenge any sentence within or below the Guidelines range determined by the court.
The PSR designated her as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 based on prior convictions (including an escape conviction), producing a Guidelines range of 151–188 months; the court varied downward and imposed 96 months.
After Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), Frazier-LeFear filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to challenge the career-offender enhancement, arguing her escape conviction rested solely on the same residual clause language.
The government invoked the collateral-challenge waiver; the district court stayed the § 2255 petition pending Welch (which confirmed Johnson’s retroactivity) and later dismissed the § 2255 motion enforcing the waiver.
Conflicting district-court decisions on whether Johnson-based sentencing claims fall within Hahn’s “miscarriage-of-justice” exception prompted this COA and the Tenth Circuit's review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enforcement of the collateral-challenge waiver bars a Johnson-based § 2255 sentencing claim under Hahn’s miscarriage-of-justice exception	Frazier-LeFear: waiver should not bar a constitutional Johnson claim; counsel was ineffective for failing to anticipate Johnson	Government: waiver is enforceable; the Johnson claim attacks the sentence, not the waiver itself, and thus does not meet Hahn’s exceptions	The court held the waiver is enforceable; the Johnson-based claim does not fall within Hahn’s fourth "otherwise unlawful" miscarriage-of-justice exception
Whether a post-plea change in law (Johnson) or constitutional dimension of the claim alters the waiver analysis	Frazier-LeFear: constitutional error and changed law should except the claim from the waiver	Government: changes-in-law and constitutional claims do not by themselves invalidate waivers	The court held neither a later change in law nor constitutional gravity removes the claim from the waiver’s scope
Whether the fourth Hahn exception should be applied by asking only whether the alleged error satisfies Olano plain-error prejudice	Frazier-LeFear: district courts (e.g., Daugherty) applied Olano and found miscarriage	Government: Olano analysis is incomplete if the error does not make the waiver itself unlawful	The court held the Olano/plain-error inquiry is insufficient unless the error concerns the waiver’s lawfulness itself
Whether precedent permits recognizing a special "minimum procedure" or similar non-waivable constitutional baseline that would save the claim	Frazier-LeFear: some constitutional minima should be non-waivable	Government: Tenth Circuit precedent enforces waivers even for constitutional claims unless waiver itself is unlawful	The court refused to create such an exception and enforced the waiver under existing Tenth Circuit precedent

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (waiver of § 2255 rights generally enforceable if knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (enumerates four miscarriage-of-justice exceptions to appellate waivers)
United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (applied Johnson reasoning to career-offender guideline residual clause)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (Johnson held retroactive on collateral review)
United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991 (10th Cir. 2011) (limits Hahn’s fourth exception to errors that make the waiver unlawful)
United States v. Shockey, 538 F.3d 1355 (10th Cir. 2008) (rejects using non-waiver legal errors to render waiver unlawful)
United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (same limitation on the fourth Hahn exception)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard: affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2005) (defendants assume risk of unfavorable changes in law when entering plea agreements)