UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MANUEL ALBERTO MICHELGALAVIZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-4138 

(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00326-JNP-EJF-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Manuel Alberto Michel-Galaviz pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin. The 

parties entered into a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement in which they 

stipulated that a reasonable sentence would be no more than 84 months’ 

imprisonment. The district court accepted the plea agreement and imposed a 

sentence of 66 months.1

 Despite the broad appeal waiver in his plea agreement, 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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

1

 The court also imposed a consecutive 24-month sentence in a separate case at 

the same time (D.C. No. 2:18-CR-93-JNP), bringing the total sentence to 90 months. 

See R., Vol. 1 at 230; id., Vol. 3 at 76. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 11, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Mr. Michel-Galaviz filed a notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce 

the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(en banc) (per curiam). 

Counsel filed a response to the motion to enforce citing Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Resp. at 1, and stating his belief that “there are no 

non-frivolous issues to be raised on behalf of Mr. Michel-Galaviz for appellate 

purposes,” id. at 4. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. We gave 

Mr. Michel-Galaviz an opportunity to respond to the motion to enforce, but he has 

not done so. 

Under Hahn, 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.” 359 F.3d at 1325. We have reviewed the 

proceedings in accordance with our obligation under Anders. See 386 U.S. at 744.2

 

We conclude the Hahn factors have been satisfied, and there is no non-frivolous 

argument to make against enforcing the appellate waiver. Accordingly, we grant the 

 2

 We note that the government’s motion to enforce purports to attach: the plea 

agreement, transcript of the Change of Plea Hearing on January 30, 2018, and 

transcript of the Sentencing Hearing on August 17, 2018. See Mot. to Enf. at 2. 

However, there were no attachments filed with the motion. We have therefore 

reviewed all of these documents from the record. See R., Vol. 1 at 195-201 (Plea 

Agreement); id., Vol. 2 at 26-49 (Change of Plea Hearing), id., Vol 3 at 22-83 

(Sentencing Hearing). 
3 

motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam