United States v. Ransburg

── United States v. Ransburg ── Case No.: 25-6155 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6155 Document: 30 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 11, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6155 (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00250-PRW-1) MALYK JAJUAN RANSBURG, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Malyk Jajuan Ransburg pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 324 total months in prison. Mr. Ransburg 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, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Ransburg responded in opposition, and the government replied. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-6155 Document: 30 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 2 The Hahn factors at issue here are whether Mr. Ransburg’s appeal falls within the scope of the appeal and whether the enforcement of the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. See id. at 1326-27. Scope of Appeal Waiver Mr. Ransburg argues that this appeal falls outside of the scope of his appeal waiver. This argument has two components. He first argues that the government breached the plea agreement when it did not support a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. Second, he argues that the language of the plea agreement led him to reasonably expect that downward adjustment, which he did not receive. Appeal waivers may be unenforceable if the government breaches the terms of the agreement. United States v. Guzman, 318 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2003). “General principles of contract law define the government’s obligations under the agreement, looking to the express language and construing any ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the agreement.” Id. The plea agreement provides that Mr. Ransburg “should receive a two-level downward adjustment for [his] acceptance of responsibility” so long as he does “not falsely deny or frivolously contest relevant conduct . . . . Further, if the Court applies that two-level downward adjustment, the United States will move for an additional one-level downward adjustment . . . . ” R. vol. 1 at 50. The plea agreement also includes a section where Mr. Ransburg “acknowledges and understands that the 2  Appellate Case: 25-6155 Document: 30 Date Filed: 03/11/2026 Page: 3 Court is not bound by, nor obligated to accept” the agreements and recommendations in the plea agre