United States vs. Aranda-Briones, No. 05-2294 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS November 9, 2006 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M ARTIN ARA NDA-BR IONES, No. 05-2294 (D.C. No. CR-05-458 M CA) (D . N.M .) Defendant-Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before H E N RY, EBEL, and BR ISC OE, Circuit Judges. Defendant M artin Aranda-Briones pled guilty to illegally reentering the country following removal after conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His plea agreement states that he knowingly waives the right to appeal any sentence within the statutory range applicable to the statute(s) of conviction. Plea Agreement at 5 (dated M ar. 21, 2005). The * This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. district court imposed a sentence of forty-six months, well within the twenty-year maximum specified in § 1326(b)(2). The court also imposed a two-year term of supervised release, again within the statutory maximum term of three years. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2). Contemplating defendant s removal after his release from confinement, the court did not designate standard conditions of supervised release but did specify as a special condition that the defendant not reenter the United States without legal authorization. Defendant appealed and, in his opening brief, raised one issue: W as the imposition of a term of unsupervised supervised release unreasonable? Aplt. Opening Br. at 1. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver in defendant s plea agreement under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Defendant, through counsel, has responded and concedes that the motion is enforceable. Aplt. Resp. to M ot. to Enforce Plea Agreement at 1. Accordingly, we GRANT the government s motion and DISM ISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 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.
