United States of America v. Bradley Neis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY NEIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-3026
(D.C. No. 2:18-CR-20091-JAR-7)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
appeal, defendant Bradley Neis pleaded guilty to
• conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846; and
• possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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
April 6, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3026 Document: 010110503912 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment on the first count
and a consecutive sixty months on the second count, for a total of ninety months.
Both sentences were within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines ranges.
Neis appealed, despite his appeal waiver. The government has moved to
enforce that waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.
2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal
waiver: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of
appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage
of justice.” Id. at 1325.
In response to the government’s motion, Neis, through counsel, states that “he
does not object to the dismissal of this appeal pursuant to [Hahn].” Resp. to Mot. for
Enforcement of Appeal Waiver at 1 (Mar. 18, 2021).
We need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not dispute.
See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of Neis’s
non-opposition, we grant the government’s motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-3026 Document: 010110503912 Date Filed: 04/06/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --