Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PACHECO-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-2097
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed August 16, 2017
    Shaheen Torgoley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Rabindranath Ramana, Calvert Law FirmCalvert Law Firm, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before KELLY, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

After entering into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Ruben Pa-cheeo-Soto pleaded guilty to drug and weapons offenses. He was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment. Despite the waiver, Pacheco-Soto filed a notice of appeal to challenge the sentence. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. In response to the motion, Pacheco-Soto’s counsel states: “After speaking with counsel, Mr. Pacheco-Soto agrees with the government that the appellate waiver should be enforced and this appeal should be dismissed.” Resp. at 3.

We grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. 
      
       This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.