Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02033/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

PEDRO LEONARDO MASCHERONI, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-2033 

(D.C. No. 1:10-CR-02626-WJ-1) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before MORITZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Pedro Leonardo Mascheroni pleaded guilty to 

two counts of communicating restricted data and aiding and abetting in violation of 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2274(b) and 2014 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a); one count of retaining national 

defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e); two counts of conveying and 

converting government property and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 641 and 2(a); and six counts of making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement 

 

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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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

June 1, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

or representation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Under the terms of the plea 

agreement, the district court sentenced him to sixty months in prison. Although the 

plea agreement contained a broad appellate waiver, Dr. Mascheroni filed a notice of 

appeal. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. 

Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. 

 In considering whether an appeal waiver is enforceable, we examine three 

factors: “(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. Dr. Mascheroni argues that the appeal waiver cannot be 

enforced under any of the three. 

Scope of the Appeal Waiver 

 Dr. Mascheroni argues that his appeal is not within the scope of the appeal 

waiver, because the appeal arises out of facts occurring after he entered his plea. He 

contends that his motions for release pending sentencing, to withdraw representation 

and appoint new counsel, to withdraw his plea, to continue sentencing and appoint 

new counsel, and to recuse the sentencing judge concern facts and circumstances 

occurring after he entered into the plea agreement. 

“[T]he text of the plea agreement is our guide” in determining whether a 

matter is within the scope of the appellate waiver. United States v. Anderson, 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

374 F.3d 955, 957 (10th Cir. 2004). The text of Dr. Mascheroni’s waiver states that 

he waives his right to appeal his convictions and sentences, unless the court imposed 

a sentence differing from the sentence agreed to by the parties. His proposed 

challenges to the denial of his motions invoke matters concerning his conviction or 

sentence and therefore are within the scope of the appellate waiver.1

 See United 

States v. Elliott, 264 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Case law makes clear that an 

appeal of a denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is an attempt to contest a conviction 

on appeal, and thus falls within the plain language of [an appeal] waiver provision.” 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). That the motions were filed after 

Dr. Mascheroni entered his plea is of no consequence. The point of the waiver is to 

relinquish claims, regardless of their merit. United States v. Rollings, 751 F.3d 1183, 

1188 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 494 (2014); see also Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1326 

& n.12 (recognizing defendant may not know what claims he is foregoing when he 

waives his right to appeal).2

 

 

1

 Any challenge to the denial of the motion for release pending sentencing is 

moot. 

2

 Dr. Mascheroni’s reliance on United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 

2005), is misplaced for two reasons. In Porter, the defendant waived his right to 

challenge his sentence and the manner in which the sentence was determined. Id. at 

1139. That appeal waiver is much narrower than Dr. Mascheroni’s broad waiver of 

the right to appeal his convictions and sentences. Furthermore, Porter considered the 

effect of a guilty plea, not an appellate waiver, on the defendant’s appeal from a 

denial of a motion to substitute counsel. Id. at 1140-41. 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

Knowing and Voluntary Waiver 

 Dr. Mascheroni argues that his plea was not entered into knowingly and 

voluntarily. In assessing the knowingness and voluntariness of an appeal waiver, we 

consider whether the plea-agreement language states that he entered into the 

agreement knowingly and voluntarily and whether the plea colloquy was adequate 

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. In 

making our assessment, we look at the totality of the circumstances. Rollings, 

751 F.3d at 1188. Dr. Mascheroni bears the burden to show that his plea was not 

knowing and voluntary. See id. at 1187. 

Dr. Mascheroni first argues, without more, that his plea was not knowing and 

voluntary because the district court did not address the fact that he was barred from 

pleading separately from his wife. But he does not argue that he would not have 

pleaded guilty if the court had inquired about the “package deal.” Thus, we conclude 

that his conclusory argument is insufficient to bring into question the knowingness or 

voluntariness of his plea. 

 Next, Dr. Mascheroni argues, for numerous reasons, that his plea was not 

knowing and voluntary due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and counsel’s 

alleged conflict of interest. As Dr. Mascheroni correctly recognizes, ineffective 

assistance of counsel arguments should be raised in a collateral proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255, not on direct appeal. See United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 

1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc); see also Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 n.13 (stating that 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

holding “does not disturb [the] longstanding rule” of generally considering 

ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review). 

 Dr. Mascheroni also argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, 

because the district court failed to (1) conduct a thorough colloquy on the waiver of 

his right to conflict-free counsel; (2) review the factual basis of the charges against 

him; or (3) inform him about sentencing. The substantial evidence of the plea 

agreement and plea colloquy, however, establishes that his plea was knowing and 

voluntary. See United States v. Tanner, 721 F.3d 1231, 1234 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(deciding synergistic effect of plea agreement and plea colloquy “will often be 

conclusive” on question of knowing and voluntary waiver). Dr. Mascheroni, who has 

a Ph.D. and is a former scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear weapons 

division, signed the plea agreement, which stated that he freely and voluntarily 

entered his plea and that he had reviewed it with counsel. Furthermore, the district 

court engaged him in a proper plea colloquy to make sure he understood what the 

plea agreement entailed. He admitted reading and discussing the plea agreement at 

length with counsel, voluntarily entering into the plea agreement, understanding the 

maximum possible penalties for the offenses to which he was pleading and the 

penalties covered in the plea agreement, and understanding that he waived his right to 

appeal his sentence. In addition, at the colloquy, he admitted the lengthy stipulation 

of facts contained in the plea agreement, and counsel stated that they had spent a 

considerable amount of time with Dr. Mascheroni concerning the facts stated in the 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

plea agreement and were satisfied that he understood the factual recitations. Under 

the circumstances, we conclude that this “properly conducted plea colloquy . . . [is] 

conclusive on the waiver issue, in spite of [Dr. Mascheroni’s] post hoc assertions to 

the contrary.” Id. at 1233. 

Miscarriage of Justice 

 Dr. Mascheroni argues that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a 

miscarriage of justice. First, he contends that he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel in the negotiation of his plea agreement. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327 (listing 

miscarriage-of-justice exceptions to appeal waiver). As indicated above, an 

ineffective-assistance claim is properly asserted in collateral proceedings. 

 In addition, Dr. Mascheroni argues that counsel was per se ineffective in the 

negotiation of the plea agreement, because counsel did not inform him that as a 

naturalized citizen his plea will result in the collateral consequence of revocation of 

his citizenship. He cites 8 U.S.C. § 1481 and Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 

(2010), to support his argument. The government correctly counters, however, that 

none of Dr. Mascheroni’s crimes are listed in § 1481, so he is not subject to loss of 

citizenship. 

Finally, Dr. Mascheroni argues that enforcement of the waiver would be 

otherwise unlawful and would “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings” because the plea agreement was illegal. Hahn, 

359 F.3d at 1327 (brackets omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). He, 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

however, makes no more than a conclusory argument, and we discern nothing 

suggesting that the plea agreement was illegal. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce. We dismiss this 

appeal, without prejudice to Dr. Mascheroni raising a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel in a collateral proceeding. We grant Dr. Mascheroni’s unopposed motion 

to supplement the record with district court documents 179, 180, 205, 230, 248, 256, 

261, 320, 333, and 347.3

 We deny his motion to supplement with (1) document 206, 

because it exceeded permitted page limits and was refiled to comply with page limits 

as document 219, which we have already allowed as a supplement to the record; and 

(2) document 498, which was stricken by the district court. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam 

 

3

 It is unnecessary to supplement the record with documents 219 and 267, 

because we previously granted the government’s request to supplement the record 

with these documents. 

Appellate Case: 15-2033 Document: 01019437964 Date Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 7