FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 25, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 12-4196
(D.C. No. 2:11-CR-00811-DN-PMW-4)
JOHAN ZUNIGA-TOLEDO, (D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Johan Zuniga-Toledo pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money
laundering. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and 60 months’
supervised release. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate
rights, Mr. Zuniga-Toledo has filed an appeal challenging his sentence. The
*
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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and
dismiss the appeal.
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. The miscarriage-of-justice prong
requires the defendant to show (a) his sentence relied on an impermissible factor such
as race; (b) ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation of the
appeal waiver rendered the waiver invalid; (c) his sentence exceeded the statutory
maximum; or (d) his appeal waiver is otherwise unlawful and the error “seriously
affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Id. at 1327 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his docketing statement, Mr. Zuniga-Toledo—who is represented by
counsel—states that he is raising the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the
district court properly calculated his sentencing guideline range, and (2) whether his
sentence was reasonable. After the government moved to enforce
Mr. Zuniga-Toledo’s appeal waiver, his attorney filed a response, stating that there is
no basis to dispute the government’s motion:
[His] plea, along with his waiver of appeal rights, was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. This appeal falls within the explicit terms of the
appeal waiver he accepted in exchange for the United States’ promises
in that plea agreement. The United States appears to have complied
-2-
with its obligations under the agreement . . . . Further, the record in this
case does not disclose any reasonable basis for asserting that
enforcement of the plea waiver “would result in a miscarriage of
justice” as described in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325
(10th Cir. 2004).
Resp. at 1.
We agree with counsel that there is no basis for Mr. Zuniga-Toledo to contest
the government’s motion to enforce. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion
to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
-3-