Court Opinion

ID: 9918748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:00:58.513536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:40.808084
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4102       Document: 010110983930         Date Filed: 01/16/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                             January 16, 2024
                           _________________________________
                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                   Clerk of Court
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

          Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                                 No. 23-4102
     v.                                              (D.C. No. 4:22-CR-00063-RJS-PK-2)
                                                                  (D. Utah)
     PATRICIA KARLEY MORENO,

          Defendant - Appellant.
                         _________________________________

                               ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                           _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**
                   _________________________________

          In November 2022, Defendant Patricia Moreno pleaded guilty to one count of

 Possession of Fentanyl with Intent to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In

 April 2023, the district court sentenced Defendant to a below Guidelines sentence of 84

 months imprisonment with credit for time served. Two months later, Defendant submitted

 a pro se letter to the district court stating she was not taking her psychiatric medications at

 the time she pleaded guilty and therefore “did not agree to what [she] was signing.” The

 *
  This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
 **
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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.
Appellate Case: 23-4102      Document: 010110983930          Date Filed: 01/16/2024      Page: 2

 district court retitled Defendant’s letter as a motion to withdraw her plea and denied it

 under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) because the rule does not allow her to

 withdraw her guilty plea after sentencing.

        Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. “[A] district court may

 not set aside a guilty plea after a defendant has been sentenced, except as a consequence of

 a direct appeal or through a collateral proceeding.” United States v. Stang, 2023 WL

 7670655, at *1 (10th Cir. 2023) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (“After the court imposes

 sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty . . . , and the plea may be set

 aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.”)).       This is not a direct appeal of

 Defendant’s conviction or sentence, nor can it be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

 Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider

 Defendant’s motion.

        Defendant also asserts for the first time on appeal that she qualifies for a retroactive

 sentencing reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821. She did not move to

 reduce her sentence in the district court. As such, we have no final decision of the district

 court to review and therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1291;

 Rekstad v. First Bank System, Inc., 238 F.3d 1259, 1261 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[a]side from a

 few well-settled exceptions, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction solely over appeals

 from ‘final decisions of the district courts of the United States.’”) (emphasis in original).

        For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of

 Defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Furthermore, we DISMISS Defendant’s

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-4102      Document: 010110983930         Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 3

 appeal of her sentence for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Bobby R. Baldock
                                                Circuit Judge

                                               3