FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 18-6016 v. (D.C. No. 5:17-CR-00149-C-1) (W.D. Oklahoma) ARMANDO BONILLA, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Armando Bonilla appeals the district court’s imposition of a $5000 special assessment imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a). On appeal, the government has invoked the appellate waiver contained in Mr. Bonilla’s plea agreement. We conclude Mr. Bonilla’s challenge falls within the scope of the appellate waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we enforce the appellate waiver and dismiss Mr. Bonilla’s appeal. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Bonilla, a foreign citizen with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer, pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1). The plea agreement advised Mr. Bonilla of the sentencing consequences he faced, including a $250,000 fine, a $100 mandatory special assessment, and a $5000 additional special assessment. The plea agreement contained an appellate waiver, which stated, in pertinent part: [D]efendant waives his right to appeal his sentence as imposed by the Court, including any restitution, and the manner in which the sentence is determined. If the sentence is above the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to apply to his case, this waiver does not include the defendant’s right to appeal specifically the substantive reasonableness of his sentence[.] ROA Vol. I at 41. At his plea hearing, the government stated the sentencing consequences Mr. Bonilla faced, again advising him regarding the $5000 additional special assessment. The government and the district court also advised Mr. Bonilla of the terms of the appellate waiver. Mr. Bonilla acknowledged that he understood the appellate waiver and the sentencing consequences he faced by pleading guilty, and he stated he was satisfied with his counsel’s services. The district court found that Mr. Bonilla “voluntarily and knowingly” entered a plea of guilty “with full understanding of the rights that [he was] giving up.” Plea Transcript at 18. 2 A Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) presented the following facts regarding Mr. Bonilla’s financial situation. For the year and three months leading up to his arrest, Mr. Bonilla was employed as a general laborer and had a monthly income of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals