United States v. Richards , 322 F. App'x 635 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 24, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 08-6279
v. (D.C. No. 05:07-CR-00314-C-2)
(W.D. Okla.)
RODERICK DESHON RICHARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the
appeal waiver contained in defendant Roderick Deshon Richards’ plea agreement.
The motion is filed pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.
2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Defendant’s counsel filed a response to the motion
to enforce stating his belief that there are no meritorious grounds upon which
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral
argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
defendant can urge denial of the government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver, and he requested permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to withdraw
where counsel conscientiously examines a case and determines that an appeal
would be wholly frivolous). This court then gave defendant an opportunity until
April 9, 2009, to file a pro se response to the government’s Hahn motion. To
date, defendant has not filed a response to the motion to enforce the plea
agreement.
Accordingly, the government’s motion is GRANTED, the appeal is
DISMISSED, and defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-2-