United States v. Sanchez

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1484 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 26, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-1484 (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00345-DDD-2) GABRIEL SANCHEZ, a/k/a Gavi, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Gabriel Sanchez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute and

distribution of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in

prison. He filed a notice of appeal, but his plea agreement contained an appeal

waiver. The government has now moved to enforce the appeal waiver under

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

Mr. Sanchez’s counsel filed a response to the motion and moved to withdraw, citing

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and stating that “[t]here are no

nonfrivolous arguments against dismissal of this appeal by enforcement of the appeal

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1484 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2025 Page: 2

waiver signed by Mr. Sanchez.” Resp. at 1. Consistent with Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744, we gave Mr. Sanchez the opportunity to file a pro se response. His response

was initially due on May 29, 2025, and we sua sponte extended the deadline to

June 12, but to date he has not filed a response.

We will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal falls within the”

waiver’s scope; (2) “the defendant 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. The government argues that all three of these conditions are

met in this case.

As required by Anders, we fully examined all the proceedings. See 386 U.S.

at 744. After doing so, we agree there is no non-frivolous basis to oppose the

government’s motion. We therefore grant the government’s motion to enforce the

appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

as Mr. Sanchez’s attorney.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam