UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MARTIN CARRILLO-LOPEZ, 

a/k/a Jonathan Pacheco Bernal, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 14-6112 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00006-C-1) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Appellant Martin Carrillo-Lopez entered into a plea agreement in which he 

waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with the exception of a few 

limited circumstances not relevant here. The district court sentenced him to 

70 months’ imprisonment, which was the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines 

range. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez filed an appeal despite his waiver; the government seeks 

 

* 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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 22, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

to enforce the plea agreement and asks this court to dismiss the appeal. See United 

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

 The plea agreement, which Mr. Carrillo-Lopez signed, states that he 

“knowingly and voluntarily waives” his right to appeal his sentence or conviction. 

Plea Agreement at 7. And the transcript of the hearing at which Mr. Carrillo-Lopez 

changed his plea to “guilty” evidences his understanding that he was agreeing to 

waive his right to appeal, as well as his understanding that the court would be advised 

in sentencing by the Sentencing Guidelines range and that it was not bound by any 

predictions his attorney may have made about what that range would be. Change of 

Plea Tr. at 9-12. 

 Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argues that his appeal waiver was not knowing and 

voluntary because it was based on his attorney’s lower prediction of what the 

guidelines range would be. The district court, however, was very clear in the plea 

colloquy that the court was not bound by any predictions made by others regarding 

what the guidelines range. He further argues that his waiver resulted in a miscarriage 

of justice because his sentence was “otherwise unlawful.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. 

His basis for this assertion is that “counsel for the government, in advocating at the 

sentencing hearing for a ‘low-end guidelines sentence,’ did not act in good faith in 

light of Mr. [Carrillo-Lopez’s] safety-valve eligibility.” Resp. at 2. He states that 

this “negatively impacts the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Id. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s one-sentence statement is insufficient to 
- 3 - 

establish (or even argue) as to how the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the 

judicial proceeding was negatively impacted. Enforcing this knowing and voluntary 

waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Motion to Enforce Appeal 

Waiver is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam