Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01255/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Gallardo-Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JULIAN GALLARDO-MEDINA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1255 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00500-MSK-1) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to 

appeal, Julian Gallardo-Medina pleaded guilty to one count of illegal re-entry by a 

previously removed alien following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). After he was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment, within 

the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, he appealed. The government has 

 

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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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

November 6, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1255 Document: 01019519528 Date Filed: 11/06/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

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

1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal waiver: “(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. In 

response to the government’s motion, Mr. Gallardo-Medina, through counsel, has 

declined to dispute any of the Hahn factors and has conceded that this court should 

enforce the appeal waiver. 

 We need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not dispute. 

See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of 

Mr. Gallardo-Medina’s concession, the motion to enforce is granted and this appeal 

is dismissed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-1255 Document: 01019519528 Date Filed: 11/06/2015 Page: 2