Law-of-the-Case Bars Repackaged Challenges to an Enforced Appeal Waiver in Serial Contempt Appeals
1. Introduction
Case: In re: Contempt Proceedings Against Carpenter (10th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).
Parties: United States of America (Appellee) v. Daniel E. Carpenter (Appellant).
Posture: After Mr. Carpenter pleaded guilty to criminal contempt under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver,
the Tenth Circuit previously enforced that waiver and dismissed his direct appeal. While that appeal was pending, Mr. Carpenter filed
multiple district-court motions seeking dismissal/vacatur. The district court denied them. He appealed those post-judgment denials, and
the government again moved to enforce the same appeal waiver.
Key issues: (i) whether the appeal waiver still forecloses appellate review of the district court’s post-judgment rulings,
and (ii) whether Mr. Carpenter may relitigate—directly or through new variations—arguments already rejected in the earlier waiver-enforcement
appeal, particularly via the law-of-the-case doctrine.
2. Summary of the Opinion
The Tenth Circuit granted the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismissed the appeal.
It held that Mr. Carpenter’s principal arguments were either identical to those previously rejected or were “supplemental” variants that
could have been raised earlier and are therefore barred by law of the case. The court also rejected any suggestion that intervening law
(including Hunter v. United States) compelled a different result, and it warned Mr. Carpenter that further repetitive appeals may
lead to sanctions or filing restrictions.
3. Analysis
3.1. Precedents Cited
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam)
Hahn supplies the Tenth Circuit’s framework for enforcing appeal waivers in plea agreements. Although the order does not restate
the full test, its procedural posture reflects the standard Hahn practice: the government moves to enforce the waiver and the court
dismisses if the waiver is valid and no miscarriage-of-justice exception applies. This decision treats the waiver as continuing to control
later appellate attempts connected to the conviction/sentence, including appeals from post-judgment orders that function as renewed attacks
on the same conviction and sentence.
In re Carpenter, Nos. 25-6198, 26-6003, 2026 WL 852232 (10th Cir. Mar. 27, 2026)
The earlier In re Carpenter decision is the backbone of the present disposition. There, the court already rejected Mr. Carpenter’s
arguments that: (i) jurisdictional defects in the underlying civil matter invalidate the contempt conviction; (ii) the waiver was not knowing
and voluntary due to lack of specificity about consequences; (iii) supervised release is illegal absent incarceration; and (iv) the government
breached the plea agreement. The current panel uses that prior ruling both as the substantive answer to the repeated claims and as the predicate
for applying law of the case to bar relitigation.
Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC, 840 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2016)
Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC provides the doctrinal engine: law of the case “permits a court to decline the invitation to
reconsider issues already resolved earlier in the life of the litigation,” and—critically—extends “to additional supplemental arguments on
those same issues that the litigant could have but failed to present the first time around.” The panel quotes Entek at length to
emphasize institutional reasons for finality (resource conservation, incentives for best efforts, reduced delay, and maintaining public confidence).
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005)
The court cites Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer to frame how it treats pro se filings: it construes them liberally but will
not permit pro se status to become a vehicle for abusive filings. The citation supports the opinion’s admonition to avoid abusive language and
foreshadows the later warning about sanctions/filing restrictions for repetitive litigation.
Hunter v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026)
In a footnote, the panel addresses Mr. Carpenter’s reliance on Hunter v. United States, which “approve[d] the majority view among the
courts of appeals that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice.” The panel’s point is comparative:
the Tenth Circuit already followed that majority rule under Hahn; Hunter does not expand the exception in a way that helps
Mr. Carpenter because he identifies nothing showing a miscarriage of justice from enforcing the waiver here.
3.2. Legal Reasoning
-
Starting point: a valid plea waiver previously enforced.
The panel treats the earlier enforcement of the waiver as settled and controlling, given that the present appeal reprises the same attacks
on conviction and sentence.
-
Law of the case blocks re-litigation of already decided questions.
The court holds Mr. Carpenter is “barred from raising [the rejected arguments] again under the law-of-the-case doctrine,” citing
Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC.
-
Law of the case also blocks “new” angles that could have been raised earlier.
Mr. Carpenter’s updated “breach” theory—that the government breached by requesting supervised release—fails for two independent reasons:
(i) it is a supplemental argument he could have raised in the earlier appeal (thus barred under Entek), and (ii) the written plea
agreement contains an integration clause and “contains no representation by the government that it would not request supervised release.”
-
No discretionary departure for “manifest injustice.”
Although the doctrine is discretionary and the court “may entertain relitigation” to avoid “manifest injustice,” the panel finds nothing in
the briefing that meets that threshold.
-
Miscarriage-of-justice arguments remain unavailing even after Hunter.
The panel explains that Hunter v. United States does not alter Tenth Circuit practice under Hahn and does not demonstrate
injustice on these facts.
-
Institutional management: warning about sanctions/filing restrictions.
Given this is Mr. Carpenter’s sixth appeal (three post-sentencing) and repeats resolved issues, the court warns that further substantially
similar appeals may result in sanctions, including filing restrictions.
3.3. Impact
-
Finality in waiver enforcement: The decision underscores that once an appeal waiver has been enforced and arguments have been
resolved, later appeals that merely repackage those issues—whether from the judgment itself or from post-judgment denials—will be dismissed.
-
Broader preclusion of “supplemental” theories: By expressly applying Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC to bar
new variations that could have been raised earlier, the opinion signals limited tolerance for iterative, serial litigation strategies.
-
Contractual emphasis on the written plea agreement: The integration clause analysis reinforces that breach claims must be
anchored in the plea’s text (or clearly established promises), not post hoc expectations about positions like supervised release.
-
Post-Hunter stability: The footnote situates Hunter v. United States as confirmatory rather than disruptive for the
Tenth Circuit’s Hahn framework; litigants should not assume Hunter broadens the miscarriage-of-justice exception absent a
concrete showing.
-
Deterrence of abusive/repetitive filings: Combined with Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, the warning about
sanctions provides a roadmap for escalating judicial responses to repetitive pro se appeals.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Appeal waiver
-
A promise in a plea agreement that the defendant will not appeal certain issues (often the conviction and/or sentence). Courts usually enforce
these waivers if they were made knowingly and voluntarily and if enforcement would not cause a miscarriage of justice.
- Motion to enforce an appeal waiver
-
A government request (common in the Tenth Circuit under United States v. Hahn) asking the appellate court to dismiss an appeal because
the appellant waived the right to bring it.
- Law-of-the-case doctrine
-
A practice of refusing to revisit issues already decided earlier in the same litigation. As explained via Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC,
it can also bar new supporting arguments that could have been made the first time.
- Integration clause
-
A provision stating the written plea agreement is the complete agreement between the parties. It limits claims that some additional promise existed
outside the document.
- Miscarriage of justice (waiver context)
-
A recognized safety valve under United States v. Hahn—and confirmed as a majority approach in Hunter v. United States—allowing a court
to refuse to enforce a waiver in exceptional circumstances. The panel held no such circumstances were shown here.
- Filing restrictions/sanctions
-
Tools courts may use to stop repetitive or abusive litigation, such as requiring permission before filing further appeals on the same matter.
5. Conclusion
In re: Contempt Proceedings Against Carpenter reinforces a practical rule of finality: after an appeal waiver has been enforced and the
appellate court has resolved the underlying objections, the appellant generally cannot relitigate the same challenges—or even refinements of
those challenges that could have been raised earlier—because law of the case bars the effort. The decision also highlights the contractual
primacy of the written plea agreement (via the integration clause), treats Hunter v. United States as consistent with existing Tenth
Circuit waiver doctrine under United States v. Hahn, and signals that persistent, repetitive appeals may trigger sanctions or filing
restrictions.