United States of America v. Eusebio Salomon-Sillas, a/k/a Fernando Solis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EUSEBIO SALOMON-SILLAS,
a/k/a Fernando Solis,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-1131
(D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00014-CMA-2)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Following his acceptance of a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to
appeal, Eusebio Salomon-Sillas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute or possess with
intent to distribute one kilogram and more of a mixture and substance containing a
detectable amount of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.
Despite his waiver, Salomon-Sillas appealed. The government has moved to enforce
Salomon-Sillas’s appeal waiver. See 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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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 4, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1131 Document: 010110557330 Date Filed: 08/04/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver, 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. Salomon-Sillas’s counsel
has filed a response, stating that he “finds no basis that the Government’s motion to
enforce Appellant’s waiver of his appellate rights set forth in his plea agreement and
reaffirmed during the plea colloquy before the district court should not be granted.”
Aplt. Resp. at 19. Counsel further stated that his “discussion with his client . . . raised no
issue that would justify arguing his appeal.” Id.
Our independent review confirms that Salomon-Sillas’s appeal waiver is
enforceable. Salomon-Sillas has identified no issues he wishes to raise on appeal that fall
outside the scope of the appeal waiver. The plea agreement clearly sets forth the appeal
waiver and states that it was knowing and voluntary, and the district court confirmed
Salomon-Sillas’s understanding of his appeal waiver during his change of plea hearing.
Moreover, we see no evidence contradicting Salomon-Sillas’s knowing and voluntary
acceptance of the appeal waiver. Finally, there is no indication that enforcing the waiver
would result in a miscarriage of justice as defined in Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal
waiver and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-1131 Document: 010110557330 Date Filed: 08/04/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --