In June 2024, Daniel E. Carpenter was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt for violating a court order prohibiting interference with assets in a civil litigation matter. In February 2025, Carpenter pleaded guilty to criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to zero months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a $100,000 fine. Carpenter later moved to correct his sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), but the district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Carpenter then appealed both his conviction and sentence, as well as the dismissal of his Rule 35(a) motion. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver contained in Carpenter's plea agreement.
The Tenth Circuit applied the three-part test from United States v. Hahn to determine whether to enforce the appeal waiver: (1) whether the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, (2) whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and (3) whether enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court first addressed Carpenter's argument that the government breached the plea agreement by imposing supervised release and a fine. The court clarified that the district court is not a party to the plea agreement and therefore cannot breach it; only the government can breach such contracts. Carpenter failed to show any action by the government that breached the agreement. Next, the court rejected Carpenter's jurisdictional argument, noting that his challenges related to the underlying civil suit, not the district court's authority to enter a criminal contempt judgment. Regarding whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, the court found that Carpenter's plea agreement explicitly waived the right to appeal fines and supervised release. The district court conducted a thorough colloquy under Rule 11, during which Carpenter affirmed he understood the court's discretion to impose fines and supervised release up to five years. Finally, the court addressed the miscarriage of justice exception. Carpenter argued his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because supervised release was imposed without imprisonment. The court explained that the statutory maximum refers to the limit set by Congress for the specific violation, and 18 U.S.C. § 401 carries no maximum punishment. Furthermore, the five-year term of supervised release fell within the statutory limits for a Class A felony. The court concluded that Carpenter's arguments were challenges to the merits of his sentence, not proof that the waiver itself was unlawful.
Carpenter's appeals are dismissed, leaving the district court's sentence of zero months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a $100,000 fine in full effect. The decision reinforces that appeal waivers are enforceable unless the government breaches the agreement or the waiver is unlawful, and that challenges to the sentence's merits do not constitute a miscarriage of justice.