Court Opinion

ID: 9378747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 15:00:46.475667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.735302
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1284     Document: 010110825297       Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 13, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                              No. 22-1284
  v.                                                (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00231-PAB-2)
                                                                (D. Colo.)
  SERGIO GUADALUPE
  ORTIZ-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Sinaloa,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Sergio Guadalupe Ortiz-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to distribution and possession

 with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine (actual), and

 received a 158-month prison sentence. He has appealed from that sentence. His plea

 agreement contains an appeal waiver, which the government now seeks to enforce

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

 Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez’s counsel responds that he is not aware of any non-frivolous

 argument for overcoming the waiver, and he has moved to withdraw. See Anders v.

 California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-1284    Document: 010110825297        Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 2

       By order dated December 16, 2022, this court gave Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez until

 January 6, 2023, to file a pro se response, if desired. See id. (“A copy of counsel’s

 brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that

 he chooses . . . .”). He filed nothing by that date. On January 17, however, the court

 received Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez’s motion for extension of time to “file [his] appeal” and

 “obtain[] appellate counsel.” Letter received Jan. 17, 2023, at 1. The court

 responded by letter the next day, informing Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez that the appeal had

 already been filed and he currently had counsel, but his counsel could see no

 argument against the government’s motion, so Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez now had an

 opportunity to file his own response to that motion. The court set a new deadline of

 January 25 and warned him, “If you do not file a response by that date, the court may

 act on the government’s motion without your input.” Letter dated Jan. 18, 2023, at 1.

       The court received nothing by January 25. On February 1, the court sua sponte

 extended his deadline to February 8. The court still received nothing by that date,

 and it has received nothing since. We will therefore decide the government’s motion

 on the current record. Our task is to make “a full examination of all the proceedings”

 and “decide whether the case [i.e., opposition to the government’s motion] is wholly

 frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

       Our first question when faced with a motion to enforce an appeal waiver is

 “whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver.” Hahn, 359 F.3d

 at 1325. Here, the waiver embraces every aspect of pretrial proceedings and

 sentencing, but still allows an appeal in three circumstances:

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1284     Document: 010110825297         Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 3

                (1) the sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided
                in the statute of conviction . . . ;

                (2) the sentence exceeds the top end of the advisory
                guideline range . . . that applies for the defendant’s
                criminal history (as determined by the district court) at a
                total offense level of 35; or

                (3) the government appeals the sentence imposed.

 Mot. to Enforce an Appeal Waiver, Attach. 1 (“Plea Agreement”) at 3. The first

 exception cannot apply because life is the maximum sentence under the statute of

 conviction, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez’s 158-month

 sentence did not exceed that. The second exception cannot apply because the top end

 of the guidelines range, as calculated by the district court, was 210 months, and

 Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez’s sentence did not exceed that. The third exception cannot apply

 because the government has not appealed. Thus, this appeal falls within the waiver’s

 scope.

          We next ask “whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived

 his appellate rights.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. Here, the plea agreement states as

 much. See Plea Agreement at 2 (“[T]he defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives

 the right to appeal any matter in connection with this prosecution, conviction, or

 sentence (including the restitution order), unless it meets [one of the exceptions

 discussed above].”). The district court also confirmed as much at the change-of-plea

 hearing. The court first explained the waiver and the three potential exceptions, and

 then had the following exchange with Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez:

                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-1284    Document: 010110825297       Date Filed: 03/13/2023      Page: 4

              THE COURT: . . . Have you had a chance, Mr. Ortiz-
              Gonzalez, to review that aspect of your waiver of appellate
              rights and talk to [your attorney] about it?

              THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

              THE COURT: Do you believe that you understand that
              waiver of appellate rights?

              THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

 Mot. to Enforce an Appeal Waiver, Attach. 2 at 10–11. Thus, on the record before

 us, the knowing-and-voluntary standard is satisfied.

       Finally, we ask “whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of

 justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. We have reviewed the record and see nothing that

 might satisfy this high standard. We further note that, to the extent Mr. Ortiz-

 Gonzalez might believe that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the

 prosecutor committed misconduct in his case, his waiver does not bar him from

 pursuing a collateral attack on those issues. See Plea Agreement at 3. Moreover, if

 “an explicitly retroactive change in the sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute”

 occurs, the plea agreement does not bar bringing a motion in the district court to

 receive the benefit of that change. Id.

       In sum, we find this appeal falls within Mr. Ortiz-Gonzalez’s appeal waiver

 and no other Hahn factor counsels against enforcement of the waiver. We therefore

 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion to enforce the

 appeal waiver, and dismiss this appeal.

                                            Entered for the Court
                                            Per Curiam

                                            4