United States v. Peralta-Castrejon , 667 F. App'x 287 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 16, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-6232
(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-00092-C-1)
OSCAR PERALTA-CASTREJON, a/k/a (W.D. Okla.)
Oscar Castrejon-Peralta,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver,
Oscar Peralta-Castrejon pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to
distribute approximately 16 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine powder and one count of illegal re-entry. The district
court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment—the mandatory minimum—and
below the advisory guideline range of 121 to 151 months. Despite his appeal waiver,
Mr. Peralta-Castrejon filed a notice of appeal. In his docketing statement, he
*
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.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
indicated that he wanted to challenge his sentence. The government has moved to
enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
The attorney who filed the notice of appeal for Mr. Peralta-Castrejon
subsequently moved to withdraw and this court appointed the Federal Public
Defender’s office to represent Mr. Peralta-Castrejon on appeal. In the response to the
motion to enforce, Mr. Peralta-Castrejon’s new counsel stated his belief that
opposition to the motion to enforce would be frivolous. He therefore moved to
withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Consistent
with the process outlined in Anders, we gave Mr. Peralta-Castrejon an opportunity to
file a pro se response to the motion to enforce. See id. He did not file a response.
In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that we would enforce appeal waivers as
long as three conditions were met: (1) the matter on appeal “falls within the scope of
the waiver”; (2) the defendant-appellant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his
appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver will not “result in a miscarriage of
justice.” We have conducted an independent examination of the record. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744. We agree with the government and counsel for
Mr. Peralta-Castrejon that the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the waiver
was knowing and voluntary, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage
of justice.
2
Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss
this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3