T hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d not * m a te ri a lly a s s is t th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2); 10t h C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10t h C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J O SE G U A D A LU PE LO RE N ZO - SA LI N A S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2252 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR - 6 7 4 - L H) (D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , EBEL , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndantJ os e G uadal upe Lore nzo- Sal i nas pl ed gui l tyt o one cha r ge o f re e n tr yo f

a d e p o rt e d a lie n p re v io u s ly co n v ic te d o f a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . In th e p lea a g re e m e n t, de fe n d a n t an d th e U n ited S tate s a g re e d , p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( c) ( 1) ( C ) , t hat“[d] efe ndant ’ s fi nal adj us t ed s ent enci ng g u idelines o ffen se lev el i s tw elve (12 ), an d that [d ]efen d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ry- 2-

c a teg o ryw ill b e d e ter m in e d b yth e U n ited S tate s P ro b a tio n O ffice a n d re flec ted in th e o ri g in a l p re s e n te n c e re p o rt p re p a re d in th is c a s e .” M o t. to E n fo rc e , A tta c h . 1 ( Pl ea A gr eement ) at3. D efe ndantagr eed “ thatthe s ent ence i n thi s cas e s hal l be det erm i ned pur s uantt o t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes , us i ng the offens e l evel agr eed u p o n in this plea ag ree m en t, an d ap p ly ing the c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry det erm i ned byt he C our taft err evi ew of the pr es ent ence r eport . ” Id. D efe ndant then “k n o w ing lyw aive [d ] th e righ t t o ap p ea l anysen tenc e w ith in the statu tory r ange a ppl i cabl e t o t he s t atut e( s ) of convi ct i on. ” Id. at5. In se n tenc ing d efen d an t, the d istri ct co u rtac ce p ted th e P lea A g ree m en t’ s s t i pul at ed offens e l evel of 12, as w el l as the cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egorycal cul at i on s e t fo rt h in th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt , w h ic h w a s a c a te g o ry o f V . See i d. A tta c h . 3 ( T r . of Sent enci ng H r ’ g) at10- 11. T hes e tw o fac t or s y i el ded a gui del i ne sen tenc ing ran g e o f tw en ty -sev en to thirty -th ree m o n ths. T h e d istri ct co u rt s ent ence d defe ndantt o a t erm of tw enty - s even mont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on, fol l ow ed by a tw o- y eart erm of uns upervi s ed r el eas e. A s defe ndantacknow l edged i n the Pl ea A gr eement , t he maxi m um s ent ence the courtcoul d have i m pos ed underthe appl i cabl e s t atut e w as up t o t w entyy ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a mandat or yt erm of not m or e than thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne nott o exce ed $250, 000, and a s p e c ia l p e n a lty a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 1 0 0 . See Pl ea A gr eementat2. N o tw ith sta n d in g th e a p p e a l w a iv e r in h is P lea A g re e m e n t, de fe n d a n t, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a not i ce of appea l chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence . T he- 3-

g o v ern m en t has m o v ed to en fo rce the a p p ea l w aive r un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c) (p er c u ri am ). U n d er Hahn , w e w ill enfor ce a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l s o l ong as ( 1) “the di s put ed appe al fal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of the w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s , ” ( 2) “the defe ndantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s , ” and ( 3) “enfor ci ng t he w ai verw oul d [not ] r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. at1325. D efe ndant ’ s couns el has fi l ed a r es pons e t o the mot i on t o enfor ce s t at i ng hi s bel i ef thatt her e ar e no gr ounds upon w hi ch defendant ’ s appea l can be sust ai ned . T his cou rtprovided d efen dan tan o pp ortun i tyt o fil e a pro se res po nse t o t he mot i on t o enfor ce, w hi ch w as due on A pr i l 5, 2007, butt o dat e, he has not file d a re s p o n s e . W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the Pl ea A gr eementand the tr ans cr i pt s of the pl ea he ar i ng and the s ent enci ng hear i ng. W e conc l ude, appl y i ng the Hahn fac t or s , t hatdefe ndant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l i s enfor cea bl e. A ccor di ngl y , w e G R A N T the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the Pl ea A gr eementand D I SM I SS t he appe al . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue forthw i th. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM