Court Opinion

ID: 9367711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 18:00:55.268151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.893625
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2095     Document: 010110806536       Date Filed: 02/01/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 1, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-2095
                                                    (D.C. No. 2:20-CR-01719-KG-1)
  JUAN MIGUEL ALVAREZ,                                         (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Juan Miguel Alvarez pleaded guilty to production of child pornography and

 received a 262-month prison sentence. He has appealed from that sentence despite

 the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. The government now moves to enforce that

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

 Alvarez has filed a response through counsel.

       When deciding a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, we normally ask:

 “(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

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
Appellate Case: 22-2095    Document: 010110806536        Date Filed: 02/01/2023     Page: 2

 rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

 Id. at 1325. But we need not address a Hahn factor the defendant does not dispute.

 See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005).

       In this case, Alvarez’s response does not address any Hahn factor. Rather,

 Alvarez concedes that “this direct appeal must be dismissed,” Resp. at 2, although

 not on account of his appeal waiver. He says instead that he intended to bring a

 claim for ineffective assistance of counsel but “the precedent of this Court effectively

 prohibits assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.” Id. So, for

 that reason, he does not oppose dismissal. But he says that he “specifically preserves

 his right to collaterally attack his sentence and conviction based on either ineffective

 assistance of counsel or material misrepresentations by the government.” Id.

       We will not address whether Alvarez could have brought an ineffective-

 assistance claim on direct appeal, nor do we express any opinion on whether

 Alvarez’s plea agreement permits him to bring a collateral attack on either of the

 bases he has described. We hold only that Alvarez has conceded the government’s

 motion by failing to address any Hahn factor. For that reason, we grant the

 government’s motion to enforce, and we dismiss this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court
                                             Per Curiam

                                            2