UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROSENDO FLORES ANGULO, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-2088 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CR-03766-MV-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, McHUGH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the 

appeal waiver contained in defendant Rosendo Flores Angulo’s plea agreement. We 

grant the defendant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion 

to enforce the defendant’s appeal waiver, and dismiss the appeal. 

The defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(c)(1)(C) to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). The statutory maximum penalty for this offense 

is 20 years’ (240 months’) imprisonment. See id. § 841(b)(1)(C). In the plea 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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 12, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

agreement, the parties agreed that a sentence within the range of 168 to 210 months’ 

imprisonment was appropriate in this case. The district court imposed a 210-month 

sentence. The plea agreement included the following waiver of Flores’s appellate 

rights: 

The Defendant is aware that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 

afford a defendant the right to appeal a conviction and the sentence 

imposed. Acknowledging that, the Defendant knowingly waives the right 

to appeal the Defendant’s conviction(s) and any sentence, including any 

fine, at or under the maximum statutory penalty authorized by law. 

Mot. to Enforce, Ex. 1 at 9. 

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement under United 

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

a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, we consider: “(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. 

The defendant’s counsel responded to the government’s motion. Citing 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), counsel states that the defendant has 

no non-frivolous argument against enforcement of his appeal waiver. Counsel also 

requests permission to withdraw from representing the defendant pursuant to Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744. We gave the defendant an opportunity to file a pro se response to 

the motion to enforce. See id. To date, he has not filed any response. 

Under Anders, we have reviewed the motion and the record and we conclude 

that the defendant’s appeal waiver is enforceable. Accordingly, we grant his 
3 

counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal 

waiver, and dismiss the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam