FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 9, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 12-5011
(D.C. No. 4:11-CR-00145-CVE-1)
GILBERTO DE LEON HERNANDEZ, (N.D. Okla.)
a/k/a Ruben Lozano Trevino, a/k/a Ruben
Lozano-Trevino, a/k/a Ruben Lozano,
a/k/a Luis Garcia-De Leon, a/k/a Gilberto
Deleon Hernandez, a/k/a Gilberto
Hernandez, a/k/a Luis Hernandez,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
After accepting a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal,
Gilberto De Leon Hernandez pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) and (c)(2), and illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C.
*
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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Despite the waiver, he filed a notice of intent to appeal. The
government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
This court appointed counsel for Mr. Hernandez, and ordered a response to the
government’s motion to enforce. We have reviewed the government’s motion and
Mr. Hernandez’s response, and have also undertaken an independent review of the
plea agreement, change of plea hearing transcript, and sentencing hearing transcript.
We grant the motion to enforce and dismiss the appeal.
Under Hahn, in evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver, 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.
Mr. Hernandez concedes that “[i]t would appear that Appellant’s appeal falls
within the scope of the appellate waiver contained in the written plea agreement.”
Resp. at 3. He also admits that both the written plea agreement and “plea colloquy
indicates that Appellant’s waiver was both knowing and voluntary.” Id. at 4.
However, he asserts a technical deficiency in the colloquy arising from the
district court’s failure to use the words “threats” and “force” in establishing a
voluntary waiver. He cites Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), which provides: “Before
accepting a plea of guilty . . . the court must address the defendant personally in open
-2-
court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats,
or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).”
Mr. Hernandez admits that he twice told the district court that he was entering
a guilty plea of his own free will, and that he repeatedly affirmed that his waiver was
voluntary. Nonetheless, he argues that because the court “did not mention the words
“threat or force . . . [the colloquy] may not be considered sufficient to determine
that Appellant’s plea was [] truly entered voluntarily of his own free will.” Resp.
at 5.
We need not decide whether a defendant’s admission that he is acting of his
own free will is broad enough to obviate the need for the district court to specifically
ask if the guilty plea is a product of “threats” or “force,” because Mr. Hernandez
concedes that the court’s failure to use the words “threats” or “force” was harmless
error because it did not affect a substantial right.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h) provides: “A variance from the requirements of this
rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” “We have construed
th[e] language [in Rule 11(h)] as requiring the defendant to show that knowledge of
the omission or variance from Rule 11 would have changed his decision to plead
guilty.” United States v. Wright, 930 F.2d 808, 810 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
“[A] defendant who receives the information omitted by the district court from
other sources generally cannot demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty had
-3-
the court also so informed him.” United States v. Ferrel, 603 F.3d 758, 763
(10th Cir. 2010). The written plea agreement states: “In addition, no one has
threatened or forced me in any way to enter into this agreement.” Plea Agreement at
20. As such, Mr. Hernandez cannot demonstrate that he would not have pleaded
guilty if the court had used the words “threats” and “force” during the change of plea
hearing.
“The third prong of our enforcement analysis requires the court to determine
whether enforcing the waiver will result in a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d
at 1327. One of a handful of exceptions to enforcement is where there has been
ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver. Id. Mr. Hernandez
directs our attention to a memorandum he filed in the district court in which
“Appellant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, apparently in the negotiation of
the plea agreement.” Resp. at 7. We have reviewed the memorandum and can
discern no such argument. In any event, “claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
[are best raised] in a collateral proceeding, not on direct review. This rule applies
even where a defendant seeks to invalidate an appellate waiver based on ineffective
assistance of counsel.” United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).
The motion to enforce is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-4-