Court Opinion

ID: 9930350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 18:01:20.898714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:28.224838
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5078     Document: 010110995603       Date Filed: 02/06/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 6, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-5078
                                                   (D.C. No. 4:21-CR-00398-GKF-1)
  JOSE GUADALUPE JIMENEZ-                                     (N.D. Okla.)
  BARRIOS, a/k/a Jose Jimenez,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Jose Guadalupe Jimenez-Barrios pleaded guilty to engaging in a conspiracy

 involving 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.

 He received a 324-month sentence. He filed this appeal even though his plea

 agreement contained an appeal waiver.

       The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v.

 Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Jimenez-

 Barrios’s attorney has responded, opining that it would be frivolous to oppose the

 government’s motion. 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          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-5078    Document: 010110995603       Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 2

 We invited Mr. Jimenez-Barrios to respond himself, but he has not done so. Our duty

 in these circumstances is to examine the record and decide whether opposing the

 government’s motion would indeed be frivolous. See id. We conclude it would.

       We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s

 scope, (2) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and

 (3) enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Hahn,

 359 F.3d at 1325.

       Scope of the waiver. Mr. Jimenez-Barrios waived the right to appeal his

 conviction and sentence with one exception—he retained the right to appeal the

 sentence if it exceeded the statutory maximum. He faced a statutory maximum of 40

 years, and he received a sentence of 324 months, which is less than that (27 years).

 So his waiver covers this appeal.

       Knowing and voluntary waiver. To determine if a waiver was knowing and

 voluntary, we typically focus on two factors—whether the plea agreement says the

 defendant entered into it knowingly and voluntarily, and whether the district court

 conducted an adequate plea colloquy. See id.

       These two factors show a knowing and voluntary waiver here. The plea

 agreement describes the appeal waiver clearly, and Mr. Jimenez-Barrios

 acknowledged in the agreement that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. And

 during the plea colloquy, he confirmed that he understood he was waiving the right to

 appeal.

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-5078     Document: 010110995603            Date Filed: 02/06/2024   Page: 3

        Miscarriage of justice. Enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage

 of justice if (1) the district court relied on an impermissible sentencing factor;

 (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver makes it invalid;

 (3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise

 unlawful, seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the

 proceedings. See id. at 1327. We see nothing suggesting that enforcing the waiver

 here will result in a miscarriage of justice.

                                       *         *     *

        We grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. We grant the government’s

 motion to enforce the appeal waiver. We dismiss this appeal.

                                                 Entered for the Court

                                                 Per Curiam

                                                 3