United States v. Richardson, 695 F. App'x 350

Richardson and co-defendants ran a scheme that raised over $1.6 million from 70+ investors by misrepresenting Bothwell Consulting’s rights to market a product (Menastil) and promising 12–20% returns secured by a non-existent trust; funds were misused for personal benefit.
Richardson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud under a plea agreement that required the court to enter a restitution order “to all victims of the Defendant’s relevant conduct” and included a broad waiver of collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence (except for ineffective-assistance claims attacking the plea or the waiver itself).
At the change-of-plea hearing Richardson was advised the court would order restitution and that he was waiving indirect challenges; he stated he understood.
District court sentenced Richardson to 68 months’ imprisonment (below guideline range) and ordered $1,698,117.50 in restitution; Richardson then filed a pro se § 2255 claiming counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the restitution order.
The district court enforced the collateral-attack waiver, concluding Richardson knowingly and voluntarily waived collateral challenges and that enforcement would not be a miscarriage of justice; it denied relief and denied a COA and in forma pauperis status as frivolous.
Richardson appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue and whether the appeal and ifp request were frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Richardson can collaterally challenge the restitution order given his plea waiver	Richardson: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to an illegal restitution order, so § 2255 is permissible	Government: plea waiver bars collateral attack on restitution except for ineffective-assistance claims attacking plea/waiver validity	Waiver enforced; Richardson’s claim falls within waiver scope and his ineffective-assistance claim did not attack plea or waiver validity, so § 2255 barred
Whether a COA and ifp status should be granted for the appeal of the § 2255 denial	Richardson: COA and ifp needed to appeal district court denial	Government: no COA; appeal is frivolous and fee prepayment cannot be excused for frivolous appeals	COA denied; appeal dismissed as frivolous; ifp denied (fees due)

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (framework for assessing enforceability of plea-waiver of appellate/collateral rights)
United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (applies Hahn analysis to collateral-attack waivers)
United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (plea-waiver does not bar ineffective-assistance claims that attack the validity of the plea or waiver)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA jurisdictional prerequisite and standard)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting COA when a petition is denied on procedural grounds)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous suits are not entitled to fee-prepayment exceptions)