United States v. Contreras, No. 17-2057 (10th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 12, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN HUGO CONTRERAS, No. 17-2057 (D.C. No. 5:15-CR-01415-RB-3) (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Christian Hugo Contreras accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to drug and money-laundering offenses. He was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment, which was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines range. Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Contreras appealed. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 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and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. We need not address a Hahn factor that the appellant does not contest. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). In his response to the government’s motion, Contreras, through counsel, informs the court that he does not oppose the motion. Further, he has not contested any of the Hahn factors. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is granted, and this matter is terminated. 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.