Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03123/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Cortes-Ponce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RAUL CORTES-PONCE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3123 

(D.C. No. 5:13-CR-40078-DDC-1) 

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, Raul Cortes-Ponce 

pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of 

methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 192 months’ imprisonment, 

which was well below the advisory guideline range of 292 to 365 months. Despite 

his appeal waiver, Mr. Cortes-Ponce filed a pro se notice of appeal. The government 

 

*

 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 1, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3123 Document: 01019484099 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 

(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 Mr. Cortes-Ponce’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, stating that there is no 

basis to appeal.1

 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel also 

filed a response to the motion to enforce indicating that he did not oppose the motion 

and that the motion accurately sets forth the appeal waiver and the plea colloquy. 

Given these circumstances, we gave Mr. Cortes-Ponce an opportunity to file a pro se 

response to the motion, see id. He did not file a response. 

 In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that we would enforce appeal waivers as 

long as three conditions were met: (1) the matter on appeal “falls within the scope of 

the waiver”; (2) the defendant-appellant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver will not “result in a miscarriage of 

justice.” We have conducted an independent examination of the record, see Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744, and we agree with the government that Mr. Cortes-Ponce’s appeal 

falls within the scope of the waiver, the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and 

enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we 

grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

 

1

 This motion was denied without prejudice to renewal if filed in full compliance 

with 10th Cir. R. 46.4(A). Counsel did not file a renewed motion to withdraw. In 

light of our disposition, however, we sua sponte allow counsel’s withdrawal and relieve 

him of any further representational duties on behalf of Mr. Cortes-Ponce. 

Appellate Case: 15-3123 Document: 01019484099 Date Filed: 09/01/2015 Page: 2