Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-02135/USCOURTS-ca10-19-02135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector Ulises Cisneros-Topete
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HECTOR ULISES CISNEROS-TOPETE, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-2135

(D.C. No. 2:19-CR-01290-JAP-1)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Hector Ulises Cisneros-Topete pleaded guilty to reentry of a removed alien in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). The district court sentenced him to 

37 months’ imprisonment. Although his plea agreement contained a broad waiver of 

his appellate rights, he seeks to challenge his sentence through this appeal. The 

government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement 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 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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

January 27, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-2135 Document: 010110295235 Date Filed: 01/27/2020 Page: 1
2

voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government asserts that all of the 

Hahn conditions have been satisfied: (1) Mr. Cisneros-Topete’s appeal is within the 

scope of the appeal waiver because his sentence was within the range contemplated 

by the plea agreement; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; 

and (3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. In response

to the government’s motion, Mr. Cisneros-Topete, through counsel, states that he 

“has found no non-frivolous argument in opposition to the Government’s Motion.” 

Resp. at 1.

Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant 

the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We do so, however, without 

prejudice to Mr. Cisneros-Topete’s right to pursue post-conviction relief on the 

grounds permitted in his plea agreement. 

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

Appellate Case: 19-2135 Document: 010110295235 Date Filed: 01/27/2020 Page: 2