Filed: Aug. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2016 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 16-1047 (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00347-MSK-1) PABLO GUTIERREZ-TOLEDO, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _ This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendan
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2016 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 16-1047 (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00347-MSK-1) PABLO GUTIERREZ-TOLEDO, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _ This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 16-1047
(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00347-MSK-1)
PABLO GUTIERREZ-TOLEDO, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the
appeal waiver contained in defendant Pablo Gutierrez-Toledo’s plea agreement. We
grant the defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion
to enforce the defendant’s appeal waiver, and dismiss the appeal.
The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry by a previously
deported felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The statutory
maximum penalty for this offense is 10 years’ (120 months’) imprisonment. See
id.
*
This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
§ 1326(b)(1). Applying a total offense level of 10, the district court calculated the
defendant’s advisory guidelines sentencing range as 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment.
The court imposed a 27-month sentence. The government has not filed an appeal.
In his plea agreement, the defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waive[d] the
right to appeal any matter in connection with [his] prosecution, conviction, or
sentence,” except in the following three circumstances: (1) the sentence imposed
exceeded the maximum penalty under the statute of conviction; (2) the sentence
exceeded the advisory sentencing guideline range applicable to a total offense level
of 10; or (3) the government appealed from the sentence imposed. Mot. to Enforce,
Attach. 1 (Plea Agmt.) at 2.
The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement under United
States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In evaluating
a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, 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 defendant’s counsel responded to the government’s motion. Citing
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), counsel states that the defendant has
no non-frivolous argument against enforcement of his appeal waiver. In particular,
counsel represents that “[t]here is no argument available that one of the three
exceptions to the appeal waiver occurred.” Resp. at 3-4. Counsel also requests
permission to withdraw from representing the defendant pursuant to Anders,
386 U.S.
2
at 744. We gave the defendant an opportunity to file a pro se response to the motion
to enforce. See
id. To date, he has not filed any response.
Under Anders, we have reviewed the motion and the record and we conclude
that the defendant’s appeal waiver is enforceable. Accordingly, we grant his
counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver, and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3