United States v. Guerrero , 673 F. App'x 895 ( 2017 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 23, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 16-6298
(D.C. No. 5:15-CR-00093-M-8)
XAVIER JORGE GUERRERO, (W.D. Okla.)
a/k/a Chico,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Xavier Jorge Guerrero accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to one
count of conspiring to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He was
sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment, within the Sentencing Guidelines range.
Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Mr. Guerrero 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).
*
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
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
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, Mr. Guerrero 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