United States of America v. Eber Uriel Perez-Ramirez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EBER URIEL PEREZ-RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-1168
(D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00028-RM-4)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
appeal, Eber Uriel Perez-Ramirez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams
or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. After he was sentenced to 126 months in prison, below the
applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, he appealed. The government has moved to
enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328
(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 19, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1168 Document: 010110563881 Date Filed: 08/19/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Hahn sets forth three factors to evaluate an appeal waiver: “(1) whether the
disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of 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.
Mr. Perez-Ramirez, through counsel, concedes that he “has no grounds to oppose the
government’s motion.” Aplt. Resp. at 2.
We need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not dispute.
See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In light of
Mr. Perez-Ramirez’s concession, the motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is
dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-1168 Document: 010110563881 Date Filed: 08/19/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --