Case Explained: United States v. Gutierrez

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-16 Docket: 2:24-CR-00020-HCN-1) The tenth-circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal of his criminal sentence based on an enforceable waiver of appellate rights contained in his plea agreement. The court held that the defendant’s challenges to two sentencing enhancements—specifically those for the use of sophisticated means and for impersonating a federal officer—fell squarely within the scope of the waiver, which permitted appeals only for sentences exceeding the statutory maximum or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied the three-part standard from *United States v. Holzer* to determine enforceability: whether the appeal falls within the waiver’s scope, whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and whether enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the waiver was valid because the plea agreement explicitly detailed the defendant’s understanding of his rights, his attorney certified that these rights were explained, and the magistrate judge confirmed the defendant’s comprehension during the plea colloquy. Additionally, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the government forfeited its right to enforce the waiver by failing to file a specific motion under Tenth Circuit Rule 27.3(A)(1)(d), ruling that the local rule permits raising the issue in a merits brief and that there was no justification for suspending the rule to address the defendant’s procedural arguments. As a practical consequence, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the district court’s sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment intact. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.