FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 6, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 14-5055
(D.C. No. 4:13-CR-00068-JHP-7)
JORGE HERNANDEZ, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Hernandez pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to drug
conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(b)(1)(C). In his plea
agreement, he waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, unless the
sentence exceeded the statutory maximum of twenty years in prison. The district
court sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison. Despite his appeal waiver,
Mr. Hernandez filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge his sentence.
*
This panel has determined 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v.
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Hernandez’s
counsel filed a response, stating that the appeal waiver is valid and should be
enforced and that he should be granted permission to withdraw. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to
withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines case and determines that appeal
would be wholly frivolous). We gave Mr. Hernandez an opportunity to file a pro se
response to the motion to enforce. See id. To date, he has not done so.
As required by Anders, we have conducted an independent review of the plea
agreement, the plea and sentencing hearing transcripts, and the motion to enforce.
See id. We conclude that the requirements for enforcing the plea waiver have been
satisfied: (1) this “appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights”;
(2) Mr. Hernandez “knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and
(3) “enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn,
359 F.3d at 1325.
Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver
and dismiss the appeal. Also, we grant Mr. Hernandez’s counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
-2-