FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 9, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-4212
v. District of Utah
RAMON SALAZAR-CERVANTES, (D.C. No. 2:06-CR-006 TC-5)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellee Ramon Salazar-Cervantes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Although the district court
calculated a guidelines range of 168-210 months, the court sentenced him to the
statutory mandatory minimum of ten years. Mr. Salazar-Cervantes now seeks to
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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). This case is
therefore 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 This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
appeal that sentence on the ground that the facts that triggered application of the
mandatory minimum were neither admitted nor found by a jury.
As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Salazar-Cervantes waived his right to
appeal any sentence imposed upon him, with certain exceptions not applicable
here. The agreement stated that he had decided to enter the plea “after full and
careful thought, with the advice of counsel, and with a full understanding of my
rights, the facts and circumstances of the case and the consequences of the plea.”
Dist. Dkt. Doc. 369, at 7. At the change of plea hearing, he orally confirmed that
he understood that he was waiving his right to appeal the sentence. In its
appellate brief, the government moves for enforcement of the plea waiver and
dismissal of the appeal. In his opening brief, the defendant does not mention the
appeal waiver, and offers no reason why it should not be enforced. The defendant
did not file a reply brief.
We have examined the record and conclude that the appellate waiver in this
case satisfies the criteria set forth in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th
Cir. 2004) (en banc). We therefore DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-2-