Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05054/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon Gomez-Maldonado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RAMON GOMEZ-MALDONADO, a/k/a 

Fidel, a/k/a Pepe, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-5054 

(D.C. No. 4:14-CR-00132-GKF-1) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before HARTZ, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, Ramon GomezMaldonado pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more 

of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 121 months’ 

imprisonment, which was at the low end of the advisory guideline range of 121 to 

151 months. Despite his appeal waiver, Mr. Gomez-Maldonado filed a notice of 

 

* 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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 17, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5054 Document: 01019492185 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States 

v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 Counsel for Mr. Gomez-Maldonado filed a response stating a belief that 

opposition to the motion to enforce would be frivolous and moved to withdraw. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Given these circumstances, we 

gave Mr. Gomez-Maldonado 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. Gomez-Maldonado’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. We also grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 15-5054 Document: 01019492185 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2