United States v. Myers

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAMERON TODD MYERS, a/k/a Casper,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-5028
(D.C. No. 4:19-CR-00154-CVE-1)
(N.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Kameron Todd Myers pleaded guilty to carjacking and associated firearms
offenses pursuant to a plea agreement with the government under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a
sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. At the
sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced
Mr. Myers to 14 years’ imprisonment but imposed five-year terms of supervised
released on two of the firearms counts.

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

September 14, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-5028 Document: 010110406133 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 1

2
Mr. Myers appealed, challenging his sentence. The government then filed a
motion to enforce the waiver of appellate rights contained in the plea agreement. The
parties have since filed a joint motion to remand to the district court for resentencing.
In the joint motion, the government and Mr. Myers agree that the district court
plainly erred in imposing a supervised release term other than was agreed upon in the
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (stating that the
sentencing recommendation or request contained in the plea agreement “binds the
court once the court accepts the plea agreement”). The government also states in the
motion that “it does not seek to enforce the waiver to the extent it applies to the error
as to the length of supervised release.” Joint Mot. to Remand at 3.
Consequently, we grant the parties’ joint motion to remand, vacate the
judgment, and remand to the district court for resentencing. The motion to enforce
the appeal waiver and motion for stay are denied as moot.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 20-5028 Document: 010110406133 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 Page: 2