United States v. Stapp

── United States v. Stapp ── Case No.: 25-6157 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 24, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6157 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6157 (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00303-HE-1) KENT MATTHEW STAPP, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kent Matthew Stapp is a prisoner who pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited object. See 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). He was sentenced to 24 months in prison. 1 Mr. Stapp seeks to appeal his sentence, but the government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Mr. Stapp was already incarcerated when the underlying conduct for the instant 1 offense occurred. The 24-month sentence was imposed to run consecutively to his previous sentence.  Appellate Case: 25-6157 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 Mr. Stapp’s attorney responded, saying it would be frivolous to oppose the government’s motion, and he requests to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Mr. Stapp filed a pro se response in opposition to his attorney’s Anders motion. He appears to argue that his appeal falls outside of the scope of his appeal waiver and that he did not enter into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. 2 He specifically argues that his sentence was too high, because, while he possessed a prohibited object, he did not possess a weapon, and his plea agreement led him to believe that he would be sentenced for possessing a prohibited object, not a weapon. He also appears to assert that the attorneys involved in his proceedings below tricked him into entering a guilty plea. We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s scope, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and (3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Scope of the Waiver Mr. Stapp waived the right to appeal his conviction as part of his plea agreement. And he waived the right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, which was 27 to 33 months in prison. We reject his argument that his sentence was too high. Mr. Stapp’s 24-month sentence does not meet this exception, so his appeal waiver covers this appeal. 2 We construe Mr. Stapp’s pleadings liberally but do not serve as his advocate. Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1291 n.1 (10th Cir. 2023). 2  Appellate Case: 25-6157 Document: 33-1