United States of America v. Luis Eduardo Barrios-Luna, a/k/a Lalo

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS EDUARDO BARRIOS-LUNA,
a/k/a Lalo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-1016
(D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00396-WJM-1)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, KELLY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Luis Eduardo Barrios-Luna pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced him to 228 months’ imprisonment.
Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a
notice of appeal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United
States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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
November 9, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1016 Document: 010110602303 Date Filed: 11/09/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Under Hahn, we consider “(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.
Counsel for Mr. Barrios-Luna filed a response to the government’s motion
stating she had “reviewed the appellate record and researched whether
Mr. Barrios-Luna’s waiver of his appellate rights is enforceable under Hahn,” Resp.
at 5, and had concluded “no non-frivolous grounds exist to contest the enforceability
of the waiver,” id. at 6. Counsel therefore requested permission to withdraw, citing
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Because counsel indicated that
Mr. Barrios-Luna “wishes to oppose the government’s motion to enforce,” Resp. at 1,
and asked that he be allowed “to submit his own response,” id. at 2, we invited him to
do so. The deadline for his response has passed, and we have not received a response
from Mr. Barrios-Luna.
Based on counsel’s concession and our independent review of the record, we
grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-1016 Document: 010110602303 Date Filed: 11/09/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --