Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-2088 (D.C. No. 1:15-CR-03766-MV-1) ROSENDO FLORES ANGULO, (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _ This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-2088 (D.C. No. 1:15-CR-03766-MV-1) ROSENDO FLORES ANGULO, (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _ This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-2088
(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-03766-MV-1)
ROSENDO FLORES ANGULO, (D. N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the
appeal waiver contained in defendant Rosendo Flores Angulo’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 pursuant to a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(1)(C) to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). The statutory maximum penalty for this offense
is 20 years’ (240 months’) imprisonment. See
id. § 841(b)(1)(C). In the plea
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
agreement, the parties agreed that a sentence within the range of 168 to 210 months’
imprisonment was appropriate in this case. The district court imposed a 210-month
sentence. The plea agreement included the following waiver of Flores’s appellate
rights:
The Defendant is aware that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742
afford a defendant the right to appeal a conviction and the sentence
imposed. Acknowledging that, the Defendant knowingly waives the right
to appeal the Defendant’s conviction(s) and any sentence, including any
fine, at or under the maximum statutory penalty authorized by law.
Mot. to Enforce, Ex. 1 at 9.
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. Counsel also
requests permission to withdraw from representing the defendant pursuant to
Anders,
386 U.S. 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
2
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