Marcos Javier Suazo-Mancilla pleaded guilty to three federal offenses: possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being unlawfully in the United States while in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to a total of 270 months in prison, a term that fell below the statutory maximum for each count. Suazo-Mancilla sought to appeal his convictions and sentence. In response, the government filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in his plea agreement. Suazo-Mancilla's counsel, citing the standard set in Anders v. California, moved to withdraw from representation, stating there was no non-frivolous basis to oppose the government's motion. The court then invited Suazo-Mancilla to file a pro se response to show why the waiver should not be enforced. Although the court granted him an extension to February 24, 2026, and subsequently extended the deadline to March 10, 2026, Suazo-Mancilla failed to file any response.
The Tenth Circuit applied the three-part test established in United States v. Hahn to determine whether to enforce the appeal waiver. First, regarding the scope of the waiver, the court noted that Suazo-Mancilla waived his right to appeal unless his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Since his sentence of 270 months was below the statutory maximum for all counts, the appeal fell squarely within the scope of the waiver. Second, the court examined whether the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily. The record, including the plea agreement and the plea colloquy, demonstrated that Suazo-Mancilla understood and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Third, the court assessed whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, a miscarriage of justice occurs only if the district court relied on an impermissible factor, if ineffective assistance of counsel invalidated the waiver, if the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, or if the waiver is otherwise unlawful in a way that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. The court found nothing in the record suggesting any of these conditions were met. Consequently, the court concluded that enforcing the waiver was appropriate.
The appeal is dismissed, and the district court's judgment stands. The defendant's counsel is permitted to withdraw from the case. This decision reinforces the binding nature of appeal waivers in plea agreements when the defendant fails to demonstrate that the waiver is invalid or that enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice. The case serves as a reminder that defendants must actively respond to motions to enforce waivers, even if they have been granted extensions, to preserve their right to appellate review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download