United States v. Barrales, No. 23-4050 (10th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 23-4050 Document: 010110903173 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 15, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAFAEL CAMPOS BARRALES, No. 23-4050 (D.C. No. 2:22-CR-00229-HCN-1) (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver in Rafael Campos Barrales’s plea agreement under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, grant the motion to enforce, and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Barrales pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Under the terms of his plea agreement, the parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 58 months in prison. Additionally, Mr. Barrales waived his right to appeal unless “the Court reject[ed] the plea agreement and determined that a sentence different from the agreed upon sentence of 58 months’ imprisonment will be imposed,” Mot. to This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. * Appellate Case: 23-4050 Document: 010110903173 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 2 Enforce, Attach. A at 4, ¶ 13.b.(2), or the court imposed a sentence “greater than the sentence set forth in [the plea] agreement,” id. at 5, ¶ 13.j.(1). He also “waived [his] right to challenge [his] sentence, unless the sentence imposed [was] greater than the sentence set forth in [the plea] agreement, and [his] conviction, in any collateral review motion . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 5, ¶ 13.j.(2). By signing his written plea agreement and responding to the court’s questions during the change of plea hearing, Mr. Barrales confirmed that he was entering his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that he understood its consequences, including the possible sentence and his appeal waiver. The court accepted his guilty plea and sentenced Mr. Barrales to 58 months in prison, in accord with the plea agreement. Nevertheless, Mr. Barrales appealed. 1 In ruling on a motion to enforce, we consider whether the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and whether enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice. Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. In his counselled response to the government’s motion to enforce, Mr. Barrales concedes there is no reasonable basis for disputing the validity of the appeal waiver or “for asserting that enforcement of the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice under” Hahn. Resp. at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Barrales’s docketing statement indicates he intended to raise the following issue on appeal: “Whether the term of imprisonment imposed by the District Court Judge and contained in the plea statement, exceeds the sentencing guideline range.” Docketing Statement at 5. 1 2 Appellate Case: 23-4050 Document: 010110903173 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 3 See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting the court need not address unchallenged Hahn factors). Entered for the Court Per Curiam 3
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.
