Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06205/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Castelo Armienta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN CARLOS CASTELO ARMIENTA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-6205 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00294-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After entering into a plea agreement that included a broad appeal waiver, 

Defendant Juan Carlos Castelo Armienta pleaded guilty on March 5, 2015, to one count 

of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, methamphetamine in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. He was sentenced on October 14, 2015, to 

180 months’ imprisonment. Though above the 10-year mandatory minimum, the 

sentence fell below the advisory guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. Despite the 

appeal waiver, Defendant filed an appeal challenging his sentence as substantively 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6205 Document: 01019721039 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 1 
2 

unreasonable. In its response brief, the government requests that this court enforce the 

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

curiam). We grant the request and dismiss this appeal. 

Hahn set forth three factors to consider in evaluating 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. We 

need not address the factors because the opening brief submitted by counsel for 

Defendant does not address the appeal waiver and no reply brief was filed. See United 

States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (declining to address Hahn factor 

not contested by defendant). But in any event, our independent review of the record 

confirms that all Hahn factors support enforcing the waiver. 

First, the issue raised by Defendant falls within the scope of the appeal waiver. 

The waiver provides: 

Except as stated immediately below, defendant waives his right to 

appeal his sentence as imposed by the Court, including any restitution, 

and the manner in which the sentence is determined. If the sentence is 

above the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to apply to 

his case, this waiver does not include the defendant’s right to appeal 

specifically the substantive reasonableness of his sentence; 

Plea Agreement, R., Vol. 1 at 33. A challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a 

below-guidelines sentence does not come within the waiver’s exception. Second, the 

record reflects that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. The 

plea agreement that he signed shows both that he understood that he had a right to appeal 

Appellate Case: 15-6205 Document: 01019721039 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 2 
3 

and that he chose to “knowingly and voluntarily” waive most of that right. Id. And the 

district court confirmed with him at the plea hearing that he understood the nature of the 

charge and the maximum penalty, that he understood the consequences of the appeal 

waiver, and that he was entering his plea voluntarily. Finally, we see nothing to suggest 

that enforcement of the appeal waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice. 

 We GRANT the government’s request to enforce the appeal waiver and DISMISS 

this appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-6205 Document: 01019721039 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 3