United States v. Contreras

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-2057
(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-01415-RB-3)
CHRISTIAN HUGO CONTRERAS, (D. N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Christian Hugo Contreras accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to
drug and money-laundering offenses. He was sentenced to 97 months of
imprisonment, which was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines range.
Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Contreras appealed. The
government moves to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359
F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. We need not address a Hahn factor
that the appellant does not contest. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143
(10th Cir. 2005).
In his response to the government’s motion, Contreras, through counsel,
informs the court that he does not oppose the motion. Further, he has not contested
any of the Hahn factors. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is granted, and this
matter is terminated.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
2