Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03218/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ulysses Hernandez-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

This panel has determined unanimously 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 23, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ULYSSES

HERNANDEZ!MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-3218

(D.C. No. 07-CR-10051-WEB)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before MURPHY, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Ulysses Hernandez-Martinez pled guilty to one count of misuse

of a Social Security number and one count of aggravated identity theft. He was

sentenced to thirty-six months in prison. Although his plea agreement contained

a waiver of his appeal rights, Mr. Hernandez-Martinez subsequently filed an

appeal challenging his sentence. The government has moved to enforce the

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en

banc) (per curiam). 

Under Hahn, 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.” 359 F.3d at 1325. 

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez concedes that his appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver of his appellate rights and he does not argue that enforcing the waiver

would result in a miscarriage of justice. He asserts, however, that he did not

knowingly and voluntarily waive his appellate rights.

In determining whether a waiver of appellate rights is knowing and

voluntary, we look primarily at two factors: (1) “whether the language of the plea

agreement states that the defendant entered the agreement knowingly and

voluntarily” and (2) whether there is “an adequate Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11 colloquy.” Id. 

There is no dispute regarding the language of the plea agreement. 

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez’s signed plea agreement states that he “knowingly and

voluntarily waives any right to appeal or collaterally attack any matter in

connection with this prosecution, conviction and sentence.” Mot., Att. A at 5. 

Further, the plea agreement states that 

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

the defendant acknowledges that he has had the plea agreement read

to him, understands it and agrees it is true and accurate and not the

result of any threats, duress or coercion . . . . The defendant

acknowledges that the defendant is entering into this agreement and

is pleading guilty because the defendant is guilty and is doing so

freely and voluntarily.

Id. at 7. 

As to the second factor, Mr. Hernandez-Martinez argues that the district

court failed to give a proper Rule 11 plea colloquy. The relevant portion of Rule

11 states that 

the court must address the defendant personally in open court. 

During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and

determine that the defendant understands, the following:

. . . 

the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal

or to collaterally attack the sentence.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N). During the plea hearing, the district court had

defense counsel summarize the plea agreement, see Mot., Att. B at 18-22, but the

district court did not review the appeal waiver provision with

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez or ask him whether he understood the waiver. 

In United States v. Edgar, 348 F.3d 867, 871 (10th Cir. 2003), we held

“that it is always error for a district court to fail to discuss an appellate waiver

provision during a Rule 11 colloquy, although not always reversible error.” 

Because Mr. Hernandez-Martinez failed to raise this Rule 11 issue in the district

court, “we review any alleged error under the plain error standard of Fed. R.

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 3 
-4-

Crim. P. 52(b).” Id. Under the plain error standard, there must be an actual error

that is plain or obvious and affects substantial rights. Id. 

As in Edgar, the district court’s failure to discuss

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez’s waiver of appellate rights was actual error that was

plain or obvious. See id. at 871-72. The question then is whether the error

affected substantial rights. “An error affects substantial rights where the error

was prejudicial, that is, if it affected the outcome of the district court

proceedings.” Id. at 872 (quotation omitted). In the context of appellate waivers,

a defendant shows prejudice by presenting evidence that the waiver was not

knowing and voluntary. Id. at 872. 

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez contends that his waiver was not knowing and

voluntary because (1) he explained at his change of plea hearing that he is not a

native English speaker and only speaks or understands a “‘bit of English,’” Resp.

at 5 (quoting Mot., Att. B at 5); (2) he has no formal education, id.; and (3) the

record shows that he did not understand the appeal waiver because he stated

during the sentencing hearing that he was going to keep fighting his case after

sentencing, id. These contentions are inconsistent with

Mr. Hernandez-Martinez’s signed plea agreement and his testimony at the plea

hearing. 

As set forth above, Mr. Hernandez-Martinez signed his plea agreement,

which included the appeal waiver and his acknowledgement that he “had the plea

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 4 
-5-

agreement read to him, understands it and agrees it is true and accurate and not

the result of any threats, duress or coercion.” Mot., Att. A at 7. At the plea

hearing, an interpreter was available for him to use. See id., Att. B. at 1-2. After

he told the court that he could only speak a little bit of English, the court asked:

“Well, do you understand what I’m asking you now?” and he said “yes.” Id. at 5. 

He did not ask to use the interpreter during the hearing and he at no point

informed the court that he did not understand what was going on during the

hearing. At the end of the plea hearing, after the plea agreement had been

summarized in open court, the district court and Mr. Hernandez-Martinez had the

following exchange:

THE COURT: Now, you listen to me carefully. Are you offering

your plea of guilty with a full understanding of all the matters set

forth in the information in this petition, in your plea agreement, and

in the certificate of your attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there anything about it that you don’t understand?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Then I ask you again, do you swear that you read,

understood, discussed with your attorney every part of the petition to

plead guilty, your plea agreement, and your answer to those

documents, and your answers to me now are true and correct; is that

right?

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct.

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 5 
-6-

Id., Att. B. at 26. Finally, Mr. Hernandez-Martinez’s statement during his

sentencing hearing that he was “going to continue fighting this, just not in this

court,” was apparently made in reference to his alleged plans to go to the United

Nations so that “the whole country [can] know what everyone’s doing here.” Id.,

Att. C at 6-7. These remarks do not affirmatively show that he did not knowingly

and voluntarily enter into his appeal waiver. 

Because Mr. Hernandez-Martinez failed to present evidence from the

record to dispute his own written and verbal assertions, we conclude that the

waiver was knowing and voluntary. See Edgar, 348 F.3d at 873. Accordingly, 

the district court’s failure to discuss the appeal waiver during the plea colloquy

did not affect Mr. Hernandez-Martinez’s substantial rights, and the plain error

standard has not been met in this case. 

The government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement is GRANTED and

the appeal is DISMISSED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Appellate Case: 07-3218 Document: 010155905 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Page: 6