UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DERRICK JAY ALBERS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-6220 (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-0082-C-1) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, KELLY and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Pursuant to a plea agreement with a br oad appeal waiver, Derrick Jay Albers pleaded guilty on May 7, 2014, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 43 and 1349, and was sentenced on October 23, 2014, to 120 months’ imprisonment. Despite his a ppeal waiver, Mr. Albe rs filed a pro se notice of appeal. The government has m oved to enforce the appeal waiver under

United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (e n banc) (per curiam). On

* 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 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - November 20, 2014, we appoi nted new counsel to repres ent Mr. Albers in this matter. In light of the response prepared by counsel, we grant the government’s motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal.

Under Hahn , we ordinarily consider three fact ors: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appella te rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. But Mr. Albers “do[es] not contest the gove rnment’s motion to enforce the plea agreement to the extent it seeks to bar a direct appeal.” Aplt. Resp. at 6. As a result,

we need not address the Hahn factors in this instance. See United States v. Porter , 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Ci r. 2005) (stating that court need not address Hahn factor not in dispute). Mr. Albers argues, however, that the appeal waiver should not be read to

foreclose a future collateral at tack raising a claim of ine ffective assistan ce of trial counsel as to the plea ag reement or his sentence. See Aplt. Resp. at 6. He “agree[s] with the government that the ev idence in the record is insufficient to raise [this] issue in a direct appeal,” id. at 2, but he wishes “to pres erve his ability to collaterally attack the plea agr eement or sentence,” id. at 6. Because the government’s motion is directed solely to the appeal now before us, we need not and do not decide whether the appeal waiver bars Mr. Al bers from filing a future colla teral attack raising a claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel. Cf. United States v. Cockerham , 237 F.3d 1179,- 3 - 1181 (10th Cir. 2001) (addressing a motion to enforce an appeal waiver against a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver as to this appeal, and th e appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam