In re: Contempt Proceedings Against Carpenter

── In re: Contempt Proceedings Against Carpenter ── Case No.: 25-6198 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6198 Document: 21 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court In re: Contempt Proceedings Against DANIEL E. CARPENTER. ------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, Nos. 25-6198 & 26-6003 v. (D.C. Nos. 5:24-MC-00005-GKF-1 & 5:14-FJ-00005-HE-1) DANIEL E. CARPENTER, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ In June 2024, the district court ordered Daniel E. Carpenter to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt for violating a court order prohibiting him from interfering with certain assets in a civil-litigation matter. In February 2025, Carpenter pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to criminal contempt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). The district court sentenced him to zero months in prison, and five years of supervised release. The court also imposed a $100,000 fine. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6198 Document: 21 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 2 Carpenter moved the district court to correct his sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), but the court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Carpenter now seeks to appeal from his conviction and sentence (Appeal No. 25-6198), and from the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 35(a) motion (Appeal No. 26-6003). His plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, which the government moves to enforce under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004). We grant the motion and dismiss these appeals. In determining whether to enforce an appeal waiver under Hahn, we consider: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government argues Carpenter’s appeals are within the scope of the waiver, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appeal rights, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Carpenter filed a response in opposition to the motion, 1 and the government filed a reply in support of its motion. Breach of the Plea Agreement Carpenter first argues that the government breached the plea agreement. But in support of his argument, he does not point to any actions the government took; instead, he points to the district court’s decision to impose a $100,000 fine and Carpenter does not dispute that his appeals are within the scope of his waiver, 1 so we need not address that H