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 

### F e b r u ary23,2007 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. T E RR Y B E NNE T T WI L L I AM S ON,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2272 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 2 1 2 0 - J C)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndantT err yB ennettW i l l i amson pl ed gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve gr ams orm or e of methamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) , and one c ountof pos s es s i on w i th i nt ent t o di s t r i but e l es s t han fi ftygr ams of a mi xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng m e th a m p h e tam in e in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(C ). H is- 2-

plea agreem ent s t at es that he “kn ow i ng l yw ai ves t he ri gh tt o ap peal [hi s] convi ct i on and/ oranys ent ence w i thi n the s t atut or ym axi m um author i zed byl aw . ” Pl ea A gr eementat5 ( dat ed and f i l ed Feb. 21, 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcour ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 188 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed bya four - y eart erm of uns upervi s ed r el eas e. H i s s ent ence i s w i thi n the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence of forty -four y ears and w i t hin the ad vis orygu i deli ne rang e of 1 88 t o 2 35 m on ths. D es pi t e thi s appea l w ai ver , defe ndantfi l ed a not i ce of appea l . T he g o v ern m en t has m o v ed to en fo rce h is ap 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, 1327. T he mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce pr ong r equi r es the defendantt o s how ( a) hi s s ent ence r el i ed on an i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct ors uch as r ace ; ( b) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i th the negot i at i on of the appe al w ai ver r ender ed the w ai veri nval i d; ( c) hi s s ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um ; or (d ) h is a p p e a l w a iv e r i s o th e rw is e u n la w f u l. Id. at 13 2 7 . T h e g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on addr es s es al l of thes e cons i der at i ons , expl ai ni ng w hynone of them underm i ne defendant ’ s appea l w ai ver . U pon r evi ew of the pert i nentpl ea a nd s e n te n c in g m a te ri a ls , w e a g re e .- 3-

D e fe n d a n t ar g u e s a s a th re sh o ld m a tter th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to enfor ce i s unt i m el yunder10t h C i r . R . 27. 2( A ) ( 3) , w hi ch pr ovi des thats uch m ot i ons “mustbe fi l ed w i t hi n 15 day s aft erthe not i ce of appea l i s fi l ed. ” T h e c i t e d ru l e a l l o ws fo rl a t e fi l i n g “ u p o n a s h o wi n g o f g o o d c a u s e , ” a n d we c o n c lu d e th a t c a u s e h a s b e e n s h o w n fo r t h e d e la y e d filin g h e re . N e x t, de fe n d a n t co n ten d s th a t h is a p p e a l fa lls o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f h is appea l w ai verand thatenfor ci ng the appe al w ai verw oul d be a mi s carr i age of justi ce b ec au se th e se n tenc e im p o sed w as u n rea so n ab le un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . I n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , he as s er t s thatthe di s tr i ct co u rtsh o u ld n o t hav e ru led th at he is a ca ree r crim inal u n d er the ad v isory s ent enci ng gui del i nes beca us e hi s tw o pr i ordrug convi ct i ons w er e r el at ed o ffe n se s. H e f

u rth e r a rg u e s th a t h is a p p e a l w a iv e r w a s u n k n o w in g b e c a u se h e d id n o t ag re e to b e u n re a so n a b lyse n ten c e d . N o n e o f h is c o n ten tio n s h a v e m e rit. T h e iss u e th a t d e fe n d a n t se e k s to a p p e a l fa lls sq u a re lyw ith in th e sp e c ific ap p ell ate w aive r, w h ich p roh ibit s an ap p ea l of “a n ysen tenc e w ith in the statu tory m a x im u m a u th o riz e d b ylaw .” P lea A g re e m e n t at 5 . T h e p lea a g re e m e n t cle a rly se t o u t th e m a x im u m se n ten c e d e fe n d a n t fa c e d a n d e x p lain e d th e a p p e llate rig h ts h e re lin q u ish e d in e x c h a n g e fo r th e b e n e fits o ffe re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. A s t o h i s m i scarri age-of-j ust i ce cl ai m that hi s appea l w ai ver w as ot herw i se un l aw ful, defe nd ant m ustshow t hat the err or “ser i ou sl yaffect[s] the fa i rness , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1327- 4-

(qu o tat ion o m itted a n d alt era ti o n m ad e). D efen d an t’ s arg u m en ts do n o t sup p o rt t he mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce e xcept i on beca us e hi s cl ai m s onl yconce rn the l aw ful nes s of hi s s ent ence ; he has notas s er t ed anycl ai m r egar di ng the cr i t i cal is s u e o f w h e th e r h is a p p e a l w a iv e r w a s its e lf u n la w f u l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 4 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 550 ( 2005) ( “The r el evantques t i on . . . i s notw hether[defendant ’ s ] s ent ence i s unl aw ful . . . , but w h e th e r . . . h is a p p e a l w a iv e r itse lf [ is] u n e n fo rc e a b le.” ); s ee als o Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1326 & n. 12 ( di s cus s i ng know i ng and vol unt arypr ong and r ecogni zi ng “the l ogi cal fai l i ngs of foc us i ng on the r es ul tof a pr ocee di ng, r atherthan on the ri g h t r e lin q u is h e d , in a n a lyzi n g w h e th e r a n a p p e a l is u n k n o w in g o r i n v o lu n ta ry” ). I ndeed, t o hol d t hatal l eged e r r or s underthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes r enderan a p p e a l w a iv e r u n law f u l w o u ld n u lli f

yth e w a iv e r b a se d o n th e v e ryso rt o f c laim it w as i nt ended t o w ai ve. N orhas defe ndantotherw i s e s how n thatenfor cementof t he w ai verw oul d s er i ous l yaffectthe fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . F u rth e r, as to d e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t h is w a iv e r w a s u n k n o w in g , this co u rth as “ co n sist en tl yan d rep ea tedlyh eld th at bro ad [a p p ea l] w aive rs are enfor cea bl e eve n w her e theyar e notcont i ngenton the ul t i m at e s ent ence fal l i ng w i t hi n an i dent i fi ed s ent enci ng r ange. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Montano , 472 F. 3d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (c iti n g c a se s a n d e x p re ss lyd e c lin in g to a d o p t a r u le t h a ta n a p p e a l wa i v e ri s u n e n fo r c e a b l e wh e r e d e fe n d a n td i d n o tk n o w a tth e t i me- 5-

s he ent er ed the pl ea a gr eementw hathers ent enci ng r ange w oul d be and thatthe r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as gr eat ert han ant i ci pat ed) . T he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe di s t r i ctcour tcompl i ed w i t h t he t erm s of the pl ea a gr eementand w i th the under s t andi ng of the pl ea thatdefe ndantexpr es s ed atthe pl ea he ar i ng. D efe ndant h as n o t dem o n str ated that h is ap p ea l fall s o u tsi d e the sco p e o f th e a p p ea l w aive r, th a t h e d id n o t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilya g re e to th e a p p e a l w a iv e r o r th a t it w o u ld b e a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce to en fo rce the w aive r. Acc o r d i n g l y , t h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s mot i o n t o e n fo r c e th e wai v e ri s GR AN TED and the appe al i s D I SM I SSE D . 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