United States v. Valdivias

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-3179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3179 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

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

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-3179 (D.C. No. 2:20-CR-20054-DDC-2) HUGO CHAVEZ VALDIVIAS, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A jury convicted Hugo Chavez Valdivias of one count of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846; and 11 counts of distributing 50

grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment on

each count, to be served concurrently. In this appeal he raises a jury nullification

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 24-3179 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2025 Page: 2

argument, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to (1)

“instruct the jury that each of the twelve crimes charged carried a mandatory penalty

of ten years to life in prison;” (2) “not instruct the jury that it was required to ignore

this harsh penalty in determining guilt;” and (3) “permit [him] to argue that the facts

in his case warranted avoidance of this harsh penalty, and that the jury should

therefore return not-guilty verdicts[.]” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2.

Although he presents a broad-ranging argument in favor of jury nullification,

Valdivias concedes that controlling circuit precedent forecloses his argument. See,

e.g., United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[A] criminal

defendant is not entitled to have the jury instructed that it can, despite finding the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, disregard the law”; in addition, “when

the jury has no sentencing function, . . . it should reach its verdict without regard to

what sentence might be imposed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). He says that

he raises the argument now to preserve it for possible further review.

One panel of this court cannot overrule a decision of a prior panel. See United

States v. Harbin, 56 F.4th 843, 846 n.2 (10th Cir. 2022). Because the issue raised is

squarely governed by controlling circuit precedent, we reject Valdivias’s argument.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge