United States of America v. Randall Crockett, a/k/a Chip

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDALL CROCKETT, a/k/a Chip,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-6072
(D.C. No. 5:18-CR-00260-SLP-7)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
appeal, Randall Crockett pleaded guilty to possession of 4,861 grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced
Crockett to 384 months in prison. Crocket has appealed, and the government has
moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315,
1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the government’s motion.
Crockett agreed to waive his right to appeal his plea, his sentence, “and the
manner in which the sentence is determined,” provided the sentence was not above
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 20, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-6072 Document: 010110578531 Date Filed: 09/20/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the advisory guideline range. R. vol. I at 51-52. Crockett reserved the right to appeal
the substantive reasonableness of his sentence if his sentence was above the advisory
guideline range. Id. at 52. The parties stipulated that a sentence of 360 months
“would be an appropriate disposition,” but Crockett acknowledged the sentencing
court “is not bound by, nor obligated to accept” any such stipulations, and that his
waiver is fully enforceable even if the sentencing court rejected the 360-month
stipulation. See id. at 50, 52. Although the advisory sentence under the Sentencing
Guidelines was life in prison, the district court sentenced Clark to 384 months.
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.” 359 F.3d at 1325.
Crockett does not dispute that his appeal falls within the scope of his waiver and that
he waived his rights knowingly and voluntarily. He contends, however, that
enforcing his waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.
To show that enforcing a waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice, a
defendant must show: (1) the district court relied on an impermissible factor such as
race; (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance in negotiating the waiver, rendering
it invalid; (3) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is
otherwise unlawful. See id. at 1327. The entirety of Crockett’s argument is that the
waiver is otherwise unlawful because the 384-month sentence is “excessive and fails
to fulfill the purposes of punishment [set] forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Resp. at 3.
Appellate Case: 21-6072 Document: 010110578531 Date Filed: 09/20/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We disagree. The sentence was well within the advisory guideline range. Although
the sentence exceeded the 360 months to which the parties stipulated, Crockett
acknowledged the district court was not bound by the parties’ stipulation. We hold
that Crockett has not carried his burden of showing that enforcing his waiver will
result in a miscarriage of justice.
The government’s motion to enforce the appellate waiver is granted and this
appeal is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-6072 Document: 010110578531 Date Filed: 09/20/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --