United States v. Martin

── United States v. Martin ── Case No.: 25-6132 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6132 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 FILED Page: 1 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 26, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Christopher M. Wolpert _________________________________ Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 25-6132 v. (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00398-R-1) (W.D. Okla.) MARLON DEWAYNE MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________ Defendant Marlon DeWayne Martin pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of child sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). Defendant’s advisory guideline range was 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment. Defendant now appeals his sentence. Our jurisdiction arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined ** unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.  Appellate Case: 25-6132 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 1320 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). On appeal, Defendant’s sole claim is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because “he had significant mitigating personal characteristics that were essentially ignored by the district court, resulting in an unreasonable balancing of the section 3553(a) factors.” Op. Br. at 7; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Unfortunately for Defendant, the Government in its response brief invokes the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement, a waiver that Defendant does not seek to circumvent. 1 See 10th Cir. R. 27.3(A)(3)(d) (permitting the Government to seek enforcement of an appellate waiver in its response brief). Accordingly, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal. Where a defendant seeks to appeal after he has entered into a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, we must determine (1) whether the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Here, Defendant’s appeal falls within the scope of the plea agreement’s waiver set forth on pages seven through nine of the agreement. While we narrowly construe the scope of Defendants appeal waiver, we nonetheless must hold him to the terms of his agreement with the Government. See id. at 1328. The waiver’s broad language encompasses any appeal challenging the substantive reasonableness of a sentence within the advisory guideline range. As noted, 1 The only mention D