United States v. Morelos-Hinojosa

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 21, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 16-1327
(D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00050-CMA-1)
JOSE MARTIN MORELOS-HINOJOSA (D. Colo.)
a/k/a, Jose Martin Morales-Hinojosa,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, EBEL, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
The government moves to enforce Jose Martin Morelos-Hinojosa’s waiver of
his right to appeal. The waiver is enforceable, so we grant the motion and dismiss
this appeal.
Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa pled guilty to illegal reentry of a previously removed
alien following an aggravated felony conviction and was sentenced to 24 months in
prison. As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his sentence
*
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
unless it exceeded certain maximums or unless the government appealed. Neither of
these happened, but Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa appealed his sentence anyway.
The government now moves to enforce the appeal waiver. This requires three
conditions to be met: (1) the appeal must fall within the scope of the waiver, (2) the
defendant must have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and
(3) enforcing the waiver must not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v.
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). The government’s
motion addresses these conditions and explains why each is satisfied.
Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa’s attorney informs the court that he sees no meritorious
grounds to oppose the government’s motion and that he explained this to
Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa. We notified Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa of his attorney’s position and
invited him to file a response showing why the court should not enforce the waiver. He
did not respond and the deadline to do so has passed.
After reviewing the record, we conclude the Hahn conditions are met and
Mr. Morelos-Hinojosa’s appeal waiver is enforceable. We therefore grant the motion to
enforce the waiver and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
2