United States v. Gonzales, 20-1308

On March 6, 2018, Richard Angel Gonzales attacked a fellow federal inmate with a homemade shank, causing serious lacerations; a three-count federal indictment followed (assault with a dangerous weapon; assault resulting in serious bodily injury; possession of contraband in prison).
On September 27, 2019, Gonzales pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon under a written plea agreement; the government dismissed the other counts and agreed to a two-level acceptance reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).
The plea agreement contained a detailed appellate-waiver clause barring appeals except if (1) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, (2) it exceeded the advisory Guidelines range for offense level 21, or (3) the government appealed.
On August 20, 2020, the district court sentenced Gonzales to 108 months’ imprisonment (below the advisory Guidelines range of 151–188 months); final judgment entered August 24, 2020; Gonzales timely filed a notice of appeal.
The government moved to enforce the appellate waiver; defense counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, arguing the appeal was frivolous given the waiver and identifying sentencing-reasonableness claims.
The Tenth Circuit applied the Hahn three-prong test (scope, knowing/voluntary, miscarriage of justice), found the waiver valid and enforceable, granted the government’s motion, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to a § 2255 ineffective-assistance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing issues fall within the scope of the appellate waiver	Gonzales challenged sentence as unreasonable and district court sentencing rulings	Waiver precludes appellate review of sentence except for three listed exceptions	Issues fall within waiver scope; waiver bars the appeal
Whether Gonzales knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights	Gonzales implicitly contended otherwise by appealing; identified sentencing issues	Plea colloquy, signed plea agreement, and written statement show a knowing, voluntary waiver	Waiver was knowing and voluntary
Whether enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Potential claims could include ineffective assistance regarding the waiver or other unlawful waiver grounds	No record evidence of race-based decision, excess statutory maximum, ineffective assistance of counsel at plea, or unlawful waiver	No miscarriage of justice; waiver enforceable
Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders and whether appeal should be dismissed	Counsel asserted appeal wholly frivolous due to enforceable waiver and sought withdrawal	Government asked the court to enforce the waiver and to dismiss the appeal	Court granted enforcement, allowed counsel to withdraw, and dismissed appeal without prejudice to a §2255 ineffective-assistance claim

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous and seeks to withdraw)
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (three-prong test for enforcing appellate waivers)
United States v. Lonjose, 663 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (appellate-waiver enforceability reviewed de novo)
United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims generally raised in collateral proceedings)