United States v. Barrios-Luna, No. 21-1016 (10th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 21-1016 Document: 010110602303 Date Filed: 11/09/2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, November 9, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUIS EDUARDO BARRIOS-LUNA, a/k/a Lalo, No. 21-1016 (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00396-WJM-1) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ 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 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 21-1016 Document: 010110602303 Date Filed: 11/09/2021 Page: 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 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
