UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN SERGIO LOERA-HERRERA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-1402 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00258-PAB-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

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

appeal waiver in Juan Sergio Loera-Herrera’s plea agreement pursuant to United 

States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. 

Loera-Herrera pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a previously deported alien, 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right 

to appeal his conviction and sentence, unless the government appealed the sentence 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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

March 16, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

or the sentence exceeded either the ten-year statutory maximum, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(1), or the advisory guideline range applicable to a total offense level of 12. 

The plea agreement acknowledged that Loera-Herrera was entering his plea 

knowingly and voluntarily and that he understood its consequences, including the 

possible sentences and appeal waiver. At the change of plea hearing, the district 

court reminded him of the possible sentences and broad appeal waiver, and he 

confirmed that he understood and that he wanted to plead guilty. Based on his 

responses to the court’s questions and its observations of his demeanor during the 

hearing, the court accepted Loera-Herrera’s plea as having been knowingly and 

voluntarily entered. It then sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment, which was 

well below the statutory maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range of 21 to 

27 months applicable to a total offense level of 12. The government did not appeal 

the sentence. Despite the fact none of the exceptions to the appeal waiver applied, 

Loera-Herrera filed a notice of appeal. 

In ruling on a motion to enforce, 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.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 

1325. 

In response to the government’s motion to enforce, Loera-Herrera, through 

counsel, “acknowledge[d] that his appeal waiver is enforceable under the standard sot 

out in [Hahn].” Aplt. Resp. at 1. He thus conceded that his waiver was knowing and 
3 

voluntary, that his appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and that enforcement 

of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. 

Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that court need not address 

uncontested Hahn factor). 

Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver 

and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam