Marlon DeWayne Martin pleaded guilty to one count of child sex trafficking in violation of federal statutes. The district court determined his advisory sentencing guideline range was between 210 and 262 months of imprisonment and sentenced him to 240 months. Martin subsequently filed an appeal, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court ignored his significant mitigating personal characteristics. However, the government pointed to an appeal waiver contained in Martin's plea agreement. Martin did not attempt to argue that the waiver was invalid or that he should be excused from it.
The Tenth Circuit applied the three-part test established in United States v. Hahn to determine if the appeal waiver was enforceable. First, the court analyzed the scope of the waiver. The agreement explicitly waived the right to appeal any sentence within the advisory guideline range, reserving the right to appeal only if the sentence exceeded that range. Since Martin's 240-month sentence fell within the 210-to-262-month range, his claim regarding substantive reasonableness was barred by the waiver. Second, the court examined whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary. The plea agreement stated Martin waived his rights knowingly and voluntarily, and the district court's colloquy confirmed Martin understood he was foregoing his right to appeal. Third, the court considered whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. This exception applies only in narrow circumstances, such as if the sentence relied on an impermissible factor like race, if ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the waiver invalid, or if the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Martin raised none of these issues, and the court's independent review of the record confirmed none applied.
Martin's appeal is dismissed, leaving the 240-month sentence in place. The decision reinforces that defendants must strictly adhere to the terms of their plea agreements when challenging sentences within the guideline range. It clarifies that absent a showing of a miscarriage of justice, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or an impermissible sentencing factor, courts will enforce broad appeal waivers even if the defendant believes the sentence was substantively unreasonable.