United States v. Lopez

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-2054 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-2054 (D.C. No. 1:23-CR-00270-WJ-1) RAUL LOPEZ, (D. N.M.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before EID, ROSSMAN, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Raul Lopez pleaded guilty to an information charging him with possession with

intent to distribute 40 grams and more of a mixture and substance containing a

detectible amount of fentanyl. The district court sentenced Lopez to 360 months in

prison. He filed a notice of appeal.

Lopez’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, which the government

moves to enforce under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004)

(en banc). In determining whether to enforce an appeal waiver under Hahn, we

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

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-2054 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 2

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 government argues that all the Hahn conditions are established here:

Lopez’s appeal is within the scope of the waiver, his waiver was knowing and

voluntary, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Lopez responds through counsel that he “does not dispute the government’s

application of United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004), to the facts of

this case.” Resp. at 1. We therefore grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam