PUBLISH

UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARCOS GARCIA-RAMIREZ, a/k/a Marco Garcia, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-1383

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00121-RM-1)

Submitted on the motion and response: * Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public De fender, Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Chief, Appe llate Division, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant - Appellant. John F. Walsh, United States Attorney, Ca therine Gleeson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, O’BRIEN and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument 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 subm itted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 18, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - PER CURIAM

.

After entering into a plea agreement th at included an appeal waiver, Marcos Garcia-Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry to the United States. He was sentenced to 19 months’ impris onment. Despite the appeal waiver,

Mr. Garcia-Ramirez has filed a notice of a ppeal in which he challenges his sentence as “unreasonable.” Dktg. Stmt. at 4. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver under Hahn , we consider: “(1) whether the disputed a ppeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defe ndant knowingly and voluntar ily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a misca rriage of justice.”

Id . at 1325. Mr. Garcia-Ramirez does not dispute any of the Hahn factors. Instead, in a single sentence citing United States v. Black , 773 F.3d 1113, 1115 n.2 (10th Cir. 2014), he urges this court to “exercise [its] discretion to bypass any decision on whether to enforce an appeal waiver, and . . . instead proceed to the merits of the appeal.” Resp. at 1. Mr. Garcia-Ramirez’s argument is based on a misreading of Black . It was appropriate to bypass resolution of the waiver issue in Black because (1) the waiver- 3 - issue was relatively complex, (2) th e government had briefed the merits, 1 and (3) Black’s appellate argumen t clearly failed. Because this court was able to

determine there was no merit to Black’s substantive clai m, the appeal could be affirmed without devoting judici al resources to decide the waiver issue. In short,

Black merely addressed a matter of judicial economy in deciding cases, it signaled no change in our appeal waiver jurisprudence. In addition to misreading Black , Mr. Garcia-Ramirez c ites no authority for the proposition that this court could grant him relief on the merits of his claim without first resolving the wai ver issue in his favor . And on this issue, Mr. Garcia-Ramirez fails to discuss any of the Hahn factors or otherwise argue that the waiver should not be enforced. Last, under these circumstan ces it would be wrong to forgo resolution of the motion to enforce and require briefi ng on the merits. To do so would deprive the government of a key benef it of its plea bargain, whic h the preliminary motion-toenforce protocol in Hahn was designed to protect. See Hahn , 359 F.3d at 1328. The motion to enforce is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

1 The government first moved to enforce the appeal waiver in its answer brief, which also addressed the merits.