Court Opinion

ID: 9368330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 19:00:48.834054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.060991
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1298     Document: 010110807922       Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 3, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-1298
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00231-PAB-5)
  EMIR ITZAYAN QUIROA PACHECO,                                  (D. Colo.)
  a/k/a Rayito,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Emir Itzayan Quiroa Pacheco pleaded guilty to distribution and possession

 with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine, and he received a

 94.5-month prison sentence. He has appealed from that sentence despite the appeal

 waiver in his plea agreement. The government moves to enforce that waiver under

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

 filed a response through counsel, and he now chooses not to oppose the motion.

       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

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-1298    Document: 010110807922       Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 2

 rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate

 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). Given Pacheco’s

 non-opposition, he does not address the Hahn factors, so we do not address them

 either. We therefore grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal.

                                            Entered for the Court
                                            Per Curiam

                                            2