FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 6, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 10-6235
(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00374-D-1)
JOSE RUBEN CASTILLO, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
This matter comes before the court on the government’s motion to enforce
the appeal waiver contained in the written plea agreement between Jose Ruben
Castillo and the United States. Mr. Castillo was charged with being a felon in
possession of a semi-automatic pistol, possessing with intent to distribute 10.8
grams of methamphetamine, and using a semi-automatic pistol in furtherance of a
*
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
drug-trafficking crime. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the
second and third counts. The district court sentenced him to consecutive terms of
eighteen months on count two and sixty months (the statutory mandatory
minimum) on count three. Despite the appeal waiver, Mr. Castillo has filed a
notice of appeal and seeks to challenge his sentence.
Mr. Castillo broadly waived his right to appeal his guilty plea, his sentence,
his restitution, or any other aspect of his conviction in the plea agreement. He
specifically waived the right to appeal the manner in which his sentence was
determined, provided it was either within or below the advisory guideline range
determined by the district court. See Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1, at 7. The
government seeks to enforce Mr. Castillo’s appeal waiver in accordance with our
decision in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per
curiam). That decision requires us to consider whether the appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver, whether Mr. Castillo knowingly and voluntarily waived his
right to appeal, and whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of
justice. Id. at 1325.
In his response to the government’s motion, Mr. Castillo does not dispute
that his appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. He argues, however, that he
did not knowingly and voluntarily wave his appellate rights because his former
attorney pressured him to sign the plea agreement. He makes other allegations
against his former attorney as well, namely that the attorney failed to protest the
-2-
government’s erroneous characterization of him as a gang member and that the
attorney failed to ensure the government returned seized currency to Mr. Castillo
and may even have kept it for himself.
In determining whether a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights was
knowing and voluntary, we look at two things in particular: whether the plea
agreement itself states that the defendant is entering the agreement knowingly and
voluntarily and whether the record demonstrates the district court conducted an
adequate plea colloquy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Hahn,
359 at 1325. Mr. Castillo bears the burden of showing that his waiver was not
knowing and voluntary. Id. at 1329. Paragraph 8 of the plea agreement states that
Mr. Castillo “knowingly and voluntarily waives his right” to “[a]ppeal or
collaterally challenge his guilty plea, sentence and restitution imposed, and any
other aspect of his conviction” and to “[a]ppeal . . . his sentence as imposed by the
Court and the manner in which the sentence is determined, provided the sentence
is within or below the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to apply
to this case,” among other things. Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1, at 7. And the
transcript of the change of plea hearing demonstrates that the district court
conducted an adequate Rule 11 colloquy.
Among other things, the court advised Mr. Castillo that “as a result of the
plea agreement in this case . . . you are waiving the right to appeal or collaterally
challenge the sentence ultimately imposed by the Court except under limited
-3-
circumstances.” Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 2 at 6. The court also advised him that
“if the Court accepts your plea of guilty, the Court may impose the same
punishment as if you had pleaded not guilty and been convicted by a jury.”
Id. at 8.
The court also questioned Mr. Castillo about the voluntariness of his plea
and about the adequacy of his counsel’s representation:
THE COURT: Sir, are your plea of guilty and the waivers of your rights
made voluntarily and completely of your own free choice?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are they also made free of any force or threats or pressures
from anyone?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
....
THE COURT: . . . Sir, are you pleading guilty of your own free will because
you are, in fact, guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services of your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Do you believe your attorney has properly counseled and
assisted you regarding these charges?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Have you understood all of my questions and the questions of
counsel?
-4-
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is there anything you have not understood or do not
understand about these proceedings today?
THE DEFENDANT: I’ve understood everything, sir.
Id. at 9, 13-14. The district court concluded that Mr. Castillo was competent to
enter the plea, that he did so knowingly and voluntarily, and that there was a
factual basis for his guilty plea. Id. at 14.
In light of the language of the plea agreement he signed and of his answers
during the Rule 11 colloquy, Mr. Castillo has not met his burden to establish his
appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary. Mr. Castillo’s other allegations
against his former attorney do not affect the enforceability of his appeal waiver.
Ineffectiveness of counsel in negotiating an appeal waiver can make an appeal
waiver invalid. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327. But Mr. Castillo has not alleged that his
counsel was ineffective in connection with the appeal waiver itself. And in any
event, he would have to wait to raise such a claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the government’s Motion to Enforce Appeal Waiver is granted
and the appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-5-