United States v. Suazo-Mancilla

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 25-5118
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5118 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 23, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-5118 (D.C. No. 4:24-CR-00397-GKF-2) MARCOS JAVIER SUAZO-MANCILLA, (N.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Marcos Javier Suazo-Mancilla pleaded guilty to (1) possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, (2) possession of firearms in furtherance

of a drug trafficking crime, and (3) being unlawfully in the United States and in

possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to a total of 270 months in

prison, with the sentence on each count falling below the statutory maximum. 1

Suazo-Mancilla seeks to appeal his convictions and sentence. The government

filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

The first two offenses carried statutory maximum sentences of life 1

imprisonment. The statutory maximum for the third offense was fifteen years. Appellate Case: 25-5118 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 2

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

(per curiam). Suazo-Mancilla’s counsel responded, citing Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stated there is no non-frivolous basis to oppose the

government’s motion, and moved to withdraw from representing Suazo-Mancilla.

Consistent with the procedure outlined in Anders, we invited Suazo-Mancilla to file

his own response to show why we should not enforce the appeal waiver, but he has

not done so.

Under these circumstances, our duty is to examine the record and decide

whether opposing the government’s motion would indeed be frivolous. See id. We

will enforce an appeal waiver if (1) the appeal falls within the waiver’s scope, (2) the

defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and (3) enforcing the

waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.

Scope of the waiver. Suazo-Mancilla seeks to appeal his conviction and

sentence, but he waived the right to appeal unless his sentence exceeded the statutory

maximum. Because his sentence was below the statutory maximum, his waiver

covers this appeal.

Knowing and voluntary waiver. The plea agreement and the plea colloquy

show that Suazo-Mancilla knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.

Miscarriage of justice. Enforcing an appeal waiver will result in a miscarriage

of justice only if: (1) the district court relied on an impermissible factor, such as

race; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in negotiating the waiver makes it invalid;

(3) the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; or (4) the waiver is otherwise

2 Appellate Case: 25-5118 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2025 Page: 3

unlawful in a way that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

the proceedings. See id. at 1327. Nothing in the record suggests that enforcing the

appeal waiver will cause a miscarriage of justice.

We grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss

this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw as Suazo-Mancilla’s

attorney.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam