United States v. Suazo, 708 F. App'x 531

Ricardo Estevan Suazo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958(a)) pursuant to a plea agreement that included a broad waiver of appellate rights.
The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Suazo to 108 months’ imprisonment (below the 10-year statutory maximum).
Despite the waiver, Suazo appealed; the government moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn.
Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, informing Suazo of the position; Suazo did not respond to the clerk’s notice or seek more time.
The Tenth Circuit independently reviewed the record per Anders, considered Hahn’s three-factor test for enforcing waivers, and found the waiver valid and enforcement appropriate.
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, denied appointment of new counsel, granted the government’s motion to enforce the waiver, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal falls within the scope of the plea-waiver	The appeal is within the waiver’s broad language and no exception applies	Suazo implicitly challenges enforceability by appealing despite the waiver	Court: The appeal falls within the waiver’s scope
Whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary	Collected plea-agreement and colloquy evidence show Suazo knowingly and voluntarily waived appeals	Suazo did not present contrary evidence or respond to Anders notice	Court: Waiver was knowing and voluntary
Whether enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice	Enforcement will not produce a miscarriage of justice given record and sentence	Suazo did not show any miscarriage-of-justice ground (and did not respond)	Court: Enforcement does not result in a miscarriage of justice
Whether to permit counsel to withdraw under Anders	Gov’t: Enforce waiver and dismiss appeal; allow counsel to withdraw	Counsel moved to withdraw via Anders brief; Suazo did not object	Court: Granted counsel’s withdrawal motion and dismissed the appeal

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (sets three-factor test for enforcing appellate waivers)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (permits counsel to move to withdraw when appeal is frivolous and requires court review and notice to defendant)