Appellate Case: 22-3025 Document: 107-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 22-3025 (D.C. Nos. 2:19-CV-02491-JAR-JPO, HECTOR JAVIER VALDEZ, 2:19-CV-02254-JAR-JPO, 2:14-CR-20096-JAR-8) Defendant - Appellant. (D. Kan.) _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MATHESON, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

This matter is before us on Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Summarily

Resolve Appeal. Appellant raised two issues in his opening brief and request for

certificate of appealability (COA):

1. Did the district court err when it concluded that Shillinger 1’s conclusive presumption of prejudice does not apply when a prosecutor intentionally and unjustifiably intrudes on the defendant’s confidential attorney-client communications after the defendant pleads guilty but before the defendant is sentenced?

2. Did the district court err when it put the burden on the defendant to prove prejudice in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation in this circumstance?

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines *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. 1 Shillinger v. Haworth, 70 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 1995). Appellate Case: 22-3025 Document: 107-1 Date Filed: 10/22/2025 Page: 2

The court previously granted a COA as to Issue 2. Appellant’s request for a COA as

to Issue 1 remains pending. We abated this appeal pending the Supreme Court’s

disposition of petition for writ of certiorari in United States v. Hohn, No. 24-1084.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hohn on October 14, 2025.

In his motion to summarily resolve this appeal, Appellant acknowledges that

this court is bound by both United States v. Orduno-Ramirez, 61 F.4th 1263 (10th

Cir. 2023) and United States v. Hohn, 123 F.4th 1084 (10th Cir. 2024) to deny the

request for COA as to Issue 1 and to conclude that the district court did not err as to

Issue 2.

Upon consideration, and in light of the foregoing, the abatement of this appeal

is lifted. Appellant’s request for a COA on Issue 1 is denied and the appeal is

dismissed as to Issue 1. The district court’s decision on Issue 2 is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

2