United States v. Yarclay, 19-6174

Background:

Yarclay used stolen identities and bank information to cash 24 counterfeit checks totaling over $95,000 across multiple banks.
After a teller at Liberty National Bank recognized him, bank president Mark Henry confronted Yarclay; Yarclay made a menacing remark and left; he was arrested the next day.
Yarclay pleaded guilty to bank fraud under a written plea agreement that waives his right to appeal the sentence and the manner of its determination, but preserved the right to appeal substantive reasonableness if the sentence exceeded the Guidelines.
The PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 41–51 months; the statutory maximum was 30 years; the district court adopted the PSR, heard arguments, analyzed § 3553(a) factors, and varied upward to a 72‑month sentence.
On appeal Yarclay challenged (1) the Guidelines calculations/enhancements (e.g., ten-or-more-victims and ID‑use issues) and (2) the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance.
The Tenth Circuit enforced Yarclay’s appellate waiver as to Guidelines‑calculation challenges and affirmed the district court’s upward variance as substantively reasonable.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yarclay’s appellate waiver bars his challenge to how the court calculated the Guidelines range	The waiver expressly covers “the manner in which the sentence is determined”; it was entered knowingly and voluntarily and should be enforced	Yarclay contends the procedural/substantive line is blurred and the court should review the calculation as part of substantive-reasonableness review	Waiver is enforceable; it bars Yarclay’s challenge to the Guidelines calculation (appeal falls within scope and was knowing and voluntary; no miscarriage of justice)
Whether the district court’s upward variance to 72 months was substantively reasonable under § 3553(a)	The upward variance was justified by threats toward a bank officer, Yarclay’s violent propensities, history, repetitive fraud, and need for incapacitation/public protection	The Guidelines and PSR already accounted for his criminal history and conduct (including a 14‑year‑old aggravated‑assault conviction); restitution addressed victim harm, so an upward variance was unnecessary and excessive	Court did not abuse discretion; the district court gave a full § 3553(a) analysis and permissibly relied on threats, instability, and repeated fraud to justify incapacitation and a below‑ten‑year but above‑Guidelines sentence
Whether specific Guidelines enhancements (ten+ victims; using one ID to produce another) could be reviewed on appeal	Government would defend the PSR calculations	Yarclay challenged these enhancements below and on appeal	Those challenges are waived by the appellate waiver and were not addressed on the merits

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (three‑part test for enforcing appellate waivers)
United States v. Elliot, 264 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2001) (exceptions to waiver when enforcing would cause miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Ibarra-Coronel, 517 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing enforceability of appeal waivers)
United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness review of sentences; deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion when sentence is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable)
United States v. Hanson, 264 F.3d 988 (10th Cir. 2001) (Guidelines may already account for certain offense distinctions; distinguished here)
United States v. Pinson, 542 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2008) (caution against increasing incarceration for mental illness but recognizing district court discretion)
United States v. Barnes, 890 F.3d 910 (10th Cir. 2018) (discussing the blurred line between procedural and substantive reasonableness)