United States v. Moreno-Robles ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
January 22, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 06-4202
(D.C. No. 2:06-CR -136-TS)
ISIDRO M ORENO-RO BLES, (D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before L UC ER O, EBEL, and TM YKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Isidro M oreno-Robles, a native of M exico, was removed from
the United States on January 20, 2004. Despite his removal, he reentered the
United States without permission from the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. After being found in the United States in February 2006, he
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
was charged with illegally reentering the United States as a previously removed
alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
M r. M oreno-Robles pled guilty to that charge. Under the terms of the plea
agreement, he waived his right to appeal any sentence imposed upon him on any
grounds, except that he did not waive the right to appeal any sentence imposed
above the statutory maximum penalty or any sentence imposed with an upward
departure from the high end of the Guidelines range. Statement by Def. in
Advance of Plea of Guilty at 3-4. The agreement set forth M r. M oreno-Robles’
understanding that the statutory maximum sentence w as twenty years’
imprisonment. Id. at 1. The district court sentenced M r. M oreno-Robles to
fifty-seven months’ imprisonment, which was below the statutory maximum
sentence and at the low end of the sentencing Guidelines. 1 Notwithstanding the
appeal waiver, he appealed. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver
under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (en
banc). For the reasons explained below, we grant the motion and dismiss the
appeal.
In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that a waiver of appellate rights will be
enforced if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of
1
During the same sentencing proceeding, the district court also sentenced
M r. M oreno-Robles to a consecutive twenty-four months of imprisonment for
violation of the terms of his supervised release. Change of Plea & Sentencing
Tr. at 31.
-2-
appellate rights; (2) [] the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights; and (3) [] enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a
miscarriage of justice.” M r. M oreno-Robles concedes that his appeal falls within
the scope of the waiver of appellate rights and that he knowingly and voluntarily
waived those rights. W e therefore need not address these two factors. See United
States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir.) (recognizing that court need not
address each Hahn factor if defendant does not raise issue relating to that factor),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 550 (2005).
M r. M oreno-Robles argues that enforcement of the plea agreement will
result in a miscarriage of justice.
Specifically, [he] . . . assert[s] that his appeal waiver should not be
enforced because of the lengthy total sentence of 81 months, based
on the 57 months imposed in this case and an additional 24 months
due to a supervised release violation. The sentence imposed in this
case was based solely upon the district court’s adoption of the
sentencing guideline recommendation, without significant explicit
consideration of other sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ [3553], 2 including the fact discussed at the sentencing hearing, that
M r. M oreno-Robles is a single parent of three children, and returns to
this country in order to earn enough to support these children.
M em. in Opp’n to M ot. to Dismiss at 2.
The miscarriage-of-justice factor requires the defendant to show one of the
following: (a) his sentence relied on an impermissible factor such as race;
2
Although M r. M oreno-Robles cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3355, we assume he
means 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
-3-
(b) ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the
appeal waiver rendered the w aiver invalid; (c) his sentence exceeded the statutory
maximum; or (d) his appeal waiver w as otherw ise unlawful. Hahn, 359 F.3d at
1327. Although M r. M oreno-Robles does not specifically identify which of these
four he relies on, we assume that he is referring to the fourth category as that is
the category in which his arguments best fit. For a fourth category unlawful
waiver, the error must “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of the judicial proceedings.” See id. (quotation omitted).
M r. M oreno-Robles bears the burden to persuade us that his appellate
waiver is unlawful. United States v. M aldonado, 410 F.3d 1231, 1233 (10th Cir.)
(per curiam), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 577 (2005). After review ing the appellate
filings, we conclude that he has not met his burden. His arguments concern the
lawfulness of his sentence; he has not asserted any claim regarding the critical
issue of whether his appeal waiver itself was unlawful. See Porter, 405 F.3d at
1144 (“The relevant question . . . is not whether [defendant’s] sentence is
unlaw ful . . . , but whether . . . his appeal waiver itself [is] unenforceable.”); see
also Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1326 & n.12 (discussing knowing and voluntary prong and
recognizing “the logical failings of focusing on the result of a proceeding, rather
than on the right relinquished, in analyzing whether an appeal waiver is
unknowing or involuntary”). Nor has he shown that enforcement of the waiver
-4-
would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial
proceedings.
M r. M oreno-Robles received two separate consecutive sentences, one for
fifty-seven months’ imprisonment for the illegal-reentry conviction and one for
tw enty-four months’ imprisonment for the violation of supervised release. See
United States v. Urcino-Sotello, 269 F.3d 1195, 1196-97 (10th Cir. 2001)
(recognizing sentences are separate); Change of Plea & Sentencing Tr. at 3
(district court’s recognition that cases are separate). Only the illegal-reentry
conviction is at issue in this case. M r. M oreno-Robles’ appeal waiver applies
only to that conviction and does not even mention the supervised-release
violation. During the plea colloquy, M r. M oreno-Robles stated that no one had
promised him anything other than what was contained in the plea agreement.
Change of Plea & Sentencing Tr. at 7.
The plea agreement clearly set out the maximum sentence
M r. M oreno-Robles faced and explained the appellate rights he relinquished in
exchange for the benefits offered by the government. In addition, the sentence he
received for the illegal-reentry conviction complied with the terms of the plea
agreement and with his expressed understanding of the plea agreement. See
M aldonado, 410 F.3d at 1234. W e therefore conclude that M r. M oreno-Robles
has failed to show any error affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of his judicial proceedings. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327.
-5-
Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the plea
agreement and DISM ISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-6-