United States v. Mujica-Aranda, No. 15-2174 (8th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Defendants appealed their sentences and the government filed a motion to dismiss based on defendants' voluntary plea agreements broadly waiving their right to appeal. The court concluded that the narrow exception in United States v. Andis, where the court will not enforce a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver if it will result in a miscarriage of justice, does not apply in defendants' cases. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeals in all of defendants' cases.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The appeals brought by defendants Mujica-Aranda, Medina-Aranda and Eziquel Cazares are within the scope of their appeal waivers, and the appeals are dismissed; the motion to dismiss defendant Prophet's appeal is taken with the case, and the appeal shall proceed. [ November 20, 2015

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2174 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Cesar Mujica-Aranda lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 15-2240 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eriberto Moises Medina-Aranda lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 15-2441 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eric Eziquel Cazares lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 15-2518 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Susan Elise Prophet lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: September 21, 2015 Filed: November 23, 2015 [Published] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. -2- In each of these four direct criminal appeals, the defendant-appellant filed an opening brief challenging the sentence imposed by the district court. In each case, the government has filed a Motion To Dismiss Appeal, arguing that the defendant entered into a voluntary plea agreement broadly waiving his right to appeal, the issues raised are within the scope of the appeal waiver, and we should enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. The appellants argue that the appeal waivers either do not apply or should not be enforced. In United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 891 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc), we held that we will enforce a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver, unless to do so “would result in a miscarriage of justice.” We concluded that this narrow exception did not apply in Andis and dismissed the appeal. Id. at 894. Thus, the government had good reason to file what it captioned as a Motion To Dismiss in these appeals. But as Andis makes clear, we have jurisdiction over the appeals, and a decision to enforce an appeal waiver is a ruling on the merits of the appeal. Thus, a motion to enforce an appeal waiver and terminate an appeal prior to full briefing is not a jurisdictional motion to dismiss under Eighth Circuit Rule 47A(b). But the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure plainly permit a motion seeking such relief, see F.R.A.P. 27(a)(1), which under our Local Rules must be submitted to a panel of three judges, see 8th Cir. Rule 27A(c). We have summarily enforced appeal waivers in the past, and we will continue to do so in appropriate cases. Summary disposition relieves the government of the need to fully brief the merits of sentencing issues the defendant seeks to raise on appeal, while affording the defendant an opportunity to challenge the summary ruling in a petition for rehearing. However, in some cases, whether an appeal waiver should be enforced under Andis is either doubtful, or enmeshed with the merits of the issues the defendant seeks to raise on appeal. In such cases, the government’s motion should be denied or taken with the case and decided by the panel to which the appeal is assigned after full briefing. -3- Having considered the Motion To Dismiss Appeal in each of these four cases from this perspective, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeals in No. 15-2174, United States v. Cesar Mujica-Aranda; No. 15-2240, United States v. Eriberto Moises Medina-Aranda; and No. 15-2441, United States v. Eric Eziquel Cazares. The Motion To Dismiss Appeal is taken with the case in No. 15-2518, United States v. Susan Elise Prophet. ______________________________ -4-

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.