United States v. Chavez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-2040
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-2040 Document: 010110808566 Date Filed: 02/06/2023 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2023 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 22-2040 (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-01519-KWR-1) ABEL MANUELITO CHAVEZ, (D. N.M.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Abel Manuelito Chavez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition, and he received an 87-month prison sentence. He has

appealed from that sentence despite the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. The

government now moves to enforce that waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d

1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Chavez has filed a response through counsel,

and he now concedes that the appeal waiver is enforceable.

When deciding a motion to enforce an appeal waiver, we normally ask:

“(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 22-2040 Document: 010110808566 Date Filed: 02/06/2023 Page: 2

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. But we need not address a Hahn factor the defendant does not dispute.

See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). Chavez has

conceded the government’s motion and therefore does not address the Hahn factors.

Accordingly, we do not address them either.

We grant the government’s motion and dismiss this appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam