Enforcing Hahn Appeal Waivers in Anders Appeals After a Valid Rule 11 Plea (United States v. Hanks)

I. Introduction

In United States v. Hanks (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (Order and Judgment), the Tenth Circuit dismissed a criminal defendant’s direct appeal after appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. The case arose from a large methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy in which Winston Levert Hanks, Jr. pleaded guilty to Drug Conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court imposed a 324-month sentence following a government-supported downward adjustment to the guideline calculation.

The appeal presented two recurring federal appellate issues: (1) whether there is any non-frivolous basis to attack the plea or sentence on direct review when counsel invokes Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and (2) whether an appellate waiver in a plea agreement forecloses the appeal under the Tenth Circuit’s enforcement framework.

Although the Order and Judgment is non-precedential (except under law-of-the-case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), it illustrates the Tenth Circuit’s integrated handling of Anders review, Rule 11 plea validity, and appeal-waiver enforcement.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit (Tymkovich, Baldock, and Federico, JJ.) conducted an independent review of the record as required by Anders and agreed with counsel that the appeal was wholly frivolous. The court held:

  1. The guilty plea was valid under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because the magistrate judge conducted an adequate colloquy and the plea was knowing and voluntary.
  2. The defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the waiver was enforceable under the Tenth Circuit’s three-part test.
  3. Even absent the waiver, the court found no non-frivolous argument that the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable, particularly because the district court considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the post-departure guideline range, which is presumptively reasonable.

The court therefore granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Anders supplies the procedural architecture for counsel withdrawal when counsel concludes an appeal lacks any non-frivolous issues. The opinion tracks Anders in two key respects:

  • Counsel’s duty: counsel must conduct a conscientious examination and file a brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.”
  • Court’s duty: the appellate court must independently review “all the proceedings” to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.

In Hanks, the Tenth Circuit explicitly performed that independent review and used it to confirm (i) Rule 11 compliance and (ii) the enforceability of the appeal waiver.

2. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam)

Hahn is the Tenth Circuit’s foundational decision governing enforcement of appellate waivers in plea agreements. The Hanks panel relied on Hahn for the three-part inquiry:

  1. Whether the appeal falls within the waiver’s scope;
  2. Whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary; and
  3. Whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Hanks applied each element straightforwardly: the direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 fell within the waiver’s text; the waiver was knowing and voluntary based on plea-agreement language plus the Rule 11 colloquy; and the record revealed no miscarriage-of-justice concern sufficient to defeat enforcement.

3. United States v. Tanner, 721 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)

Tanner is cited as an application and summary of Hahn, emphasizing two “especially” important indicators of a knowing and voluntary waiver: (1) the plea agreement’s express language and (2) an adequate Rule 11 colloquy. Hanks uses that guidance to tether waiver enforcement to concrete record features—the written waiver and the on-the-record plea hearing.

4. United States v. Chavez, 723 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2013)

The opinion cites Chavez for the proposition that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable on appeal. This matters in Hanks because, even after the court enforced the waiver, the panel independently observed that there was no non-frivolous sentencing challenge: the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, gave an individualized assessment, and imposed a sentence at the lowest end of the guideline range as modified by the downward adjustment.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 11 validity as a gateway issue

The panel treated the validity of the guilty plea as the first major checkpoint. A defective plea colloquy can create non-frivolous appellate issues (and may undercut waiver enforcement). Here, the court recited key Rule 11 features established in the record:

  • Competency to plead;
  • Understanding of charges and consequences (including the statutory range of 10 years to life);
  • A factual basis for the plea;
  • Review of every page of the plea agreement;
  • Understanding the waiver of appellate and post-conviction rights; and
  • Knowing and voluntary nature of the plea.

By concluding Rule 11 was satisfied, the court eliminated the most common route around appeal waivers: claims that the waiver (or plea) was not knowing and voluntary.

2. Enforcing the appeal waiver under the Hahn/Tanner framework

The court’s waiver analysis follows the orthodox Tenth Circuit template:

  • Scope: The plea agreement waived “the right to directly appeal the conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).” The panel found the appeal fell squarely within that language.
  • Knowing and voluntary: The court relied on the plea agreement’s express “knowingly and voluntarily” language and the adequacy of the Rule 11 colloquy—precisely the two factors highlighted in Tanner.
  • Miscarriage of justice: The panel found nothing in the record suggesting that enforcement would be unjust under Hahn’s safeguard. (The order does not identify any extraordinary defect such as an illegal sentence, a waiver tainted by ineffective assistance in negotiating the waiver, or other recognized miscarriage-of-justice triggers.)

3. Sentencing review as a backstop in the Anders context

Even though the waiver was dispositive, the panel briefly addressed sentencing reasonableness to confirm the absence of any non-frivolous appellate issue. It noted:

  • The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided an individualized assessment.
  • After granting a government-requested downward adjustment (described in the opinion as a “downward variance,” though the background discusses a downward “departure”), the court imposed a bottom-of-range sentence (324 months).
  • Under Chavez, a within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable, and the record did not rebut that presumption.

This “belt-and-suspenders” approach is common in Anders dispositions: the court ensures that, waiver aside, there is no overlooked non-frivolous sentencing claim.

4. The opinion’s treatment of plea-agreement limits on departure/variance requests

The panel included a notable fact in a footnote: Hanks waived the right to “request, recommend, or file” a motion seeking a sentence below the guideline range, yet he filed a response urging a much larger downward reduction (to no more than 120 months). The court did not treat this as creating an appellate issue—likely because it did not undermine the plea’s validity, the waiver’s enforceability, or the ultimate sentence imposed. Practically, it underscores that defendants may attempt to argue around plea constraints at sentencing, but such conduct does not itself generate a non-frivolous basis to evade an otherwise valid appeal waiver on direct appeal.

C. Impact

While non-precedential, United States v. Hanks has persuasive value and reflects durable Tenth Circuit practice:

  • Reinforcing waiver enforcement: The decision reaffirms that when a plea colloquy is thorough and the waiver language is clear, Hahn enforcement is routine—even in an Anders posture.
  • Rule 11’s centrality: The case highlights how meticulous Rule 11 findings insulate convictions and waivers from direct appellate attack.
  • Guidelines presumption remains influential: By invoking Chavez, the panel reiterates the high bar for challenging within-guidelines sentences as substantively unreasonable.
  • Anders as a system check: The court’s independent review demonstrates that waiver enforcement does not eliminate the judiciary’s responsibility to confirm there is no non-frivolous issue lurking in the record.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Anders brief: A filing by appointed defense counsel stating that, after careful review, counsel can find no non-frivolous issues to argue on appeal—paired with a request to withdraw. The appellate court must independently review the record before dismissing.
  • Rule 11 colloquy: The in-court question-and-answer proceeding where the judge ensures the defendant understands the plea, the rights being waived, possible penalties, and that the plea is voluntary and factually supported.
  • Appeal waiver: A plea-agreement provision where the defendant gives up (most) rights to appeal the conviction and/or sentence. Courts enforce these if they are clear, knowing/voluntary, and not fundamentally unjust to enforce.
  • “Miscarriage of justice” (in waiver enforcement): A safety valve from Hahn that prevents enforcement in exceptional circumstances where enforcing the waiver would be fundamentally unfair.
  • Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness: Procedural reasonableness concerns the process (correct guideline calculation, consideration of § 3553(a), explanation). Substantive reasonableness concerns whether the sentence length is reasonable given the facts and statutory factors.
  • Presumptively reasonable within-guidelines sentence: Under United States v. Chavez, when the sentence falls within the correctly calculated guideline range, the appellate court starts with a presumption the sentence is reasonable, making reversal harder absent strong countervailing reasons.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Hanks exemplifies a common but consequential appellate pattern: once the record demonstrates a valid Rule 11 plea and a knowing, voluntary appeal waiver, the Tenth Circuit will enforce the waiver under United States v. Hahn and dismiss a direct appeal—particularly where independent Anders review reveals no plausible sentencing or conviction error. The decision’s practical significance lies less in announcing a novel rule than in demonstrating how established doctrine—Anders review, Hahn/Tanner waiver enforcement, and Chavez’s within-guidelines presumption—interlocks to foreclose frivolous appeals while preserving judicial scrutiny for genuine error.