Case ID: f-appx_541/html/0897-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Arthur BREWSTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-1418.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2013.
    Shana Martin, Robert Mark Russel, Aleda Lynne Riewerts Wolak, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

After entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal, Robert Arthur Brewster pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). He was sentenced to 235 months of imprisonment, lifetime supervised release, and $3,000 in restitution, and he forfeited certain computer equipment. Notwithstanding the waiver, Mr. Brewster appealed. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325, 1328 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, through counsel, Mr. Brewster has conceded that the appeal waiver is enforceable. And although we need not address a Hahn factor that the defendant does not contest, see United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir.2005), our independent review confirms that all of the Hahn factors are satisfied.

The motion to enforce is granted and the appeal is dismissed. 
      
       This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.