United States of America v. HAYLEE PLOTT McDONALD

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAYLEE PLOTT McDONALD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-4051
(D.C. No. 2:21-CR-00384-DS-1)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Haylee Plott McDonald pleaded guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
She was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment. Ms. McDonald has filed an appeal
despite the fact that her plea agreement contains a waiver of the right to appeal. The
government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver, we consider: “(1) whether the disputed
appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 19, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-4051 Document: 010110741060 Date Filed: 09/19/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
knowingly and voluntarily waived [her] appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the
waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. In response to the motion,
Ms. McDonald, through counsel, has not disputed any of these factors. She concedes that
the appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that she entered into the plea
agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and that enforcement of the appeal waiver would
not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Our independent review confirms that Ms. McDonald’s appeal waiver is
enforceable. She has identified no issues she wishes to raise on appeal that fall outside
the scope of the appeal waiver. The plea agreement clearly sets forth the appeal waiver
and states that Ms. McDonald agreed to it knowingly and voluntarily, and the district
court confirmed Ms. McDonald’s understanding of the plea agreement during the change
of plea hearing. Moreover, we see no evidence contradicting Ms. McDonald’s knowing
and voluntary acceptance of the appeal waiver. Finally, there is no indication that
enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice as defined in Hahn, 359 F.3d
at 1327.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 22-4051 Document: 010110741060 Date Filed: 09/19/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --