Clarifying Appeal Waivers: The Tenth Circuit’s Refined Hahn Framework in United States v. Medina

Introduction

On 8 July 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an unpublished but highly instructive Order and Judgment in United States v. Keith Joseph Medina (No. 25-2026). Although technically non-precedential, the decision adds important nuance to the Tenth Circuit’s leading authority on the enforcement of appellate-rights waivers contained in plea agreements, United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

Medina pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography, exposing him to a statutory sentencing range of 15–30 years. His plea agreement included a clause waiving “any and all” direct appeals of “any sentence at or under the maximum statutory penalty.” When the district court imposed the 30-year maximum—relying in part on uncharged conduct involving additional minors— Medina sought to appeal, arguing that (i) he never understood the waiver would encompass such conduct, (ii) counsel was ineffective, and (iii) enforcing the waiver would work a miscarriage of justice.

The Government moved to dismiss under Hahn. The Tenth Circuit granted the motion, offering a detailed discussion of the waiver’s scope, the defendant’s knowing and voluntary assent, and the “miscarriage of justice” safety valve. The panel’s analysis fortifies the enforceability of appeal waivers even where the defendant later claims ignorance about sentencing factors such as relevant conduct.

Summary of the Judgment

• Scope: The waiver’s text expressly covered “any sentence at or under the maximum statutory penalty” and “any challenge to the manner in which the sentence was determined.” A challenge to consideration of relevant conduct thus “falls squarely” within the waiver.
• Knowing & Voluntary: Relying on the full plea colloquy—where Medina confirmed he read the agreement, discussed it with counsel, and understood a 30-year sentence was possible—the court found the waiver valid. Limited excerpts cited by Medina did not undermine the overall adequacy of the Rule 11 dialogue.
• Miscarriage of Justice: None of the four Hahn factors applied. Ineffective-assistance arguments must be raised collaterally; alleged sentencing errors do not render the waiver “otherwise unlawful.”
• Disposition: The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to future collateral (2255) claims for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004): The foundational case setting the three-part test for enforcing appeal waivers. Medina confirms that Hahn remains the governing framework and clarifies how to distinguish “scope” arguments from “knowing and voluntary” ones.
2. United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2005): Reinforced strict textual interpretation of waivers. The panel repeatedly quoted Porter when rejecting attempts to read ambiguity into clear waiver language.
3. United States v. Tanner, 721 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2013): Confirmed the defendant’s burden to prove a waiver unknowing or involuntary.
4. United States v. Sandoval, 477 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007): Defined “otherwise unlawful” in the miscarriage-of-justice context. Medina adopts Sandoval’s view that the waiver—not the sentence—must be unlawful.
5. Ancillary citations—Black (2000), Flood (2011), Galloway (1995)—collectively undergird the rule that ineffective-assistance claims are almost always reserved for collateral review.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court followed Hahn’s “bright-line” three-step inquiry:

1. Scope – The panel emphasised a strictly textual approach: “The waiver language states that he waives his right to appeal any sentence at or under the maximum statutory penalty…” Once the waiver expressly covered method and extent of sentencing, the substantive complaint about “relevant conduct” was foreclosed.
2. Knowing & Voluntary – Two evidentiary pillars supported validity:
   • Plain waiver language expressly noting “knowing” and “voluntary” intent.
   • A meticulous Rule 11 colloquy in which Medina conceded understanding the 30-year exposure and the breadth of the waiver.
   Medina’s selective quotes could not defeat the larger record.
3. Miscarriage of Justice – Medina invoked two of the four Hahn prongs: (a) ineffective assistance and (b) unlawfulness of the waiver. Both failed. Under established Tenth Circuit doctrine, ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily belong in § 2255 proceedings, and nothing in the execution of the waiver offended fairness or integrity of the proceedings.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

• Reinforced Textualism: Defense counsel must draft waivers with extreme precision; any broad language will likely be enforced to the letter.
• Sentencing-Factor Misunderstanding Is Not Enough: A defendant’s later surprise at the court’s use of “relevant conduct” will not vitiate the waiver if the plea colloquy and agreement flagged the possibility.
• Collateral Review Channeling: Medina reminds practitioners that the proper vehicle for most ineffective-assistance claims remains a post-conviction motion—not direct appeal—regardless of the defendant’s narrative.
• District-Court Colloquies: The decision showcases a model colloquy that survives appellate scrutiny, signaling best practices for magistrate and district judges.
• Prosecutorial Strategy: The Government may rely confidently on comprehensive waivers to terminate appeals swiftly, conserving resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appeal Waiver

A contractual clause in a plea agreement where the defendant gives up (waives) the right to challenge the conviction or sentence on direct appeal, usually with limited exceptions.

Relevant Conduct (USSG § 1B1.3)

Sentencing guideline concept allowing a judge to consider acts beyond the offense of conviction—like uncharged or dismissed conduct—if they are related to the same course of conduct or common scheme.

Rule 11 Colloquy

A mandatory in-court dialogue where the judge ensures the defendant understands the plea, waiver, maximum penalties, and constitutional rights being surrendered.

Miscarriage of Justice Safety Valve

Under Hahn, even a valid waiver is unenforceable if doing so would produce one of four extreme injustices (e.g., racial bias, ineffective counsel in negotiating the waiver, sentence above the statutory maximum, or an otherwise unlawful waiver).

Collateral Attack (28 U.S.C. § 2255)

Post-conviction proceeding (often called a habeas petition) where a federal prisoner challenges the legality of detention after direct appeal rights have expired or been waived.

Conclusion

United States v. Medina sharpens and reaffirms the Tenth Circuit’s rigorous approach to enforcing appellate-rights waivers. The panel distinguished three recurring arguments defendants employ—scope, voluntariness, and miscarriage of justice—and methodically rejected each under the governing Hahn rubric. The case underscores several practice pointers:

• Plea agreements must be read (and read aloud if necessary) line-by-line with defendants.
• Defense attorneys must anticipate that broad waiver language will nullify most direct appeals, leaving only collateral relief avenues for ineffective-assistance claims.
• The district court’s thorough Rule 11 record is the linchpin for upholding waivers on appeal.

Even though Medina’s Order and Judgment is “non-precedential,” its reasoning will doubtless be cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. The decision thus fortifies the contractual ethos of plea bargaining, clarifies defendants’ limited post-plea options, and offers a blueprint for future litigation surrounding appeal waivers in the Tenth Circuit and beyond.