United States of America v. Jawon Laquez Jones

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAWON LAQUEZ JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-6114
(D.C. No. 5:20-CR-00310-R-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Jawon LaQuez Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and received a 180-month prison sentence. He has appealed
from that sentence despite the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. The government
now moves to enforce that waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Jones’s counsel responds that he is
aware of no non-frivolous argument for overcoming the waiver and he has moved to
withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We gave Mr. Jones
two weeks to file a pro se response. See id. When we received nothing by that
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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
March 18, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-6114 Document: 010110659338 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
deadline, we gave him three more weeks. His extended deadline was March 9, 2022,
but, as of today, the court has received nothing from him. We will therefore decide
the motion on the current record.1
Our first question when faced with a motion to enforce an appeal waiver is
“whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver.” Hahn, 359 F.3d
at 1325. Here, the waiver embraces every aspect of pretrial proceedings and
sentencing, with one exception: “If the sentence is above the advisory Guidelines
range determined by the Court to apply to Defendant’s case, this waiver does not
include Defendant’s right to appeal specifically the substantive reasonableness of
Defendant’s sentence[.]” Mot. to Enforce Appellate Waiver, Exhibit 1 (“Plea
Agreement”) ¶ 16(b). The exception does not apply. Based on Mr. Jones’s extensive
criminal history, the district court determined that his advisory Guidelines range was
151 to 188 months. The court then sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment
(90 months as to each count of conviction, to run consecutively). Thus, this appeal
falls within the waiver’s scope.
We next ask “whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Here, the plea agreement states as much,
1 In this circuit, the government must file any motion to enforce an appellate
waiver “within 20 days after: (i) the district court’s notice, pursuant to 10th Cir. R.
11.1, that the record is complete, or; (ii) the district court’s notice that it is
transmitting the record pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 11.2.” 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(3)(b).
The district court transmitted the latter notice on December 14, 2021, but the
government did not file its motion until January 18, 2022. Even so, Mr. Jones does
not object to the late filing, either through counsel or pro se. We therefore excuse the
government’s tardiness. See 10th Cir. R. 2.1 (“The court may suspend any part of
these rules in a particular case on its own or on a party’s motion.”).
Appellate Case: 21-6114 Document: 010110659338 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
see Plea Agreement ¶ 16, and the district court confirmed as much at the change-of-
plea hearing, see Mot. to Enforce Appellate Waiver, Exhibit 2 at 9.
Finally, we ask “whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of
justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. We have reviewed the record and can locate no
latent argument that might satisfy this high standard. We further note that, to the
extent Mr. Jones might believe he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his
appeal waiver does not bar him from pursuing a collateral attack on that issue. See
Plea Agreement ¶ 16(c).
In sum, we find this appeal falls within Mr. Jones’s appeal waiver and no other
Hahn factor counsels against enforcement of the waiver. We therefore grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver, and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-6114 Document: 010110659338 Date Filed: 03/18/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --