UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

OSCAR PERALTA-CASTREJON, a/k/a 

Oscar Castrejon-Peralta, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-6232 

(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-00092-C-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, 

Oscar Peralta-Castrejon pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to 

distribute approximately 16 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a 

detectable amount of cocaine powder and one count of illegal re-entry. The district 

court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment—the mandatory minimum—and 

below the advisory guideline range of 121 to 151 months. Despite his appeal waiver, 

Mr. Peralta-Castrejon filed a notice of appeal. In his docketing statement, he 

 *

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 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 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

indicated that he wanted to challenge his sentence. 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). 

The attorney who filed the notice of appeal for Mr. Peralta-Castrejon 

subsequently moved to withdraw and this court appointed the Federal Public 

Defender’s office to represent Mr. Peralta-Castrejon on appeal. In the response to the 

motion to enforce, Mr. Peralta-Castrejon’s new counsel stated his belief that 

opposition to the motion to enforce would be frivolous. He therefore moved to 

withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Consistent 

with the process outlined in Anders, we gave Mr. Peralta-Castrejon an opportunity to 

file a pro se response to the motion to enforce. See id. He did not file a response. 

In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that we would enforce appeal waivers as 

long as three conditions were met: (1) the matter on appeal “falls within the scope of 

the waiver”; (2) the defendant-appellant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver will not “result in a miscarriage of 

justice.” We have conducted an independent examination of the record. See Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744. We agree with the government and counsel for 

Mr. Peralta-Castrejon that the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the waiver 

was knowing and voluntary, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage 

of justice. 
3 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss 

this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam