T hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator 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); 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther 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 ptunderthe d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der a n d ju d g m e n t m a yb e c ite d u n d e r t h e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

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

### A u gu s t9,2006 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. AG USTI N TO VA R- CH AV EZ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2064 ( D. C. No . CR - 0 5 - 1 4 7 9 M CA )

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efen d an t A g u sti n T o v ar-C h av ez p led g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of il lega l r ee n try to th e U n ited S tate s a f ter d e p o rta tio n su b se q u e n t to a fe lo n yc o n v ictio n , in v io latio n o f

8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 2 6 (a )(1 ), (a )(2 ) a n d 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ). P u rsu a n t to the pl ea a gr eement , M r . T ovar - C havez w ai ved hi s “r i ghtt o appea l anys ent ence w i thi n the [a ppl i cabl e] s t atut oryr ange. ” M ot . t o E nfor ce, E x. A , at5. A ppear i ngT hi s courtatt empt ed t o gi ve M r . T ovar - C havez an opportuni tyt o fi l e an 1 o p p o sit ion to the g o v ern m en t’ s en fo rce m en t m o ti o n , b u t th e c o u rt ’s corr es pondence t o hi m w as r eturned, m arked as r efus ed. -2- pr o s e, M r . T ovar - C havez fi l ed a not i ce of appea l fr om hi s convi ct i on and se n ten c e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s filed a m o tio n to e n fo rc e its p lea a g re e m e n t w ith M r . T ovar - C havez . M r . T ovar - C havez ’ s att orneyfi l ed a r es pons e t o the governm ent ’ s m ot i on s t at i ng hi s bel i ef thatther e i s no l egi t i m at e bas i s foran a p p e a l. W e g ra n t th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n a n d , a c c o rd in g ly, d is m is s th e a p p e a l.

1 T hi s courtw i l l 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 the fol l ow i ng thr ee e l ement s ar e s at i s fi ed: ( 1) “the di s put ed appe al fa ll s w ith in the sco p e o f th e w aive r of ap p ell ate righ ts, ” (2 ) th e d efen d an t’ s w ai verof hi s appel l at e r i ght s w as know i ng and vol unt ary , and ( 3) enfor ci ng the w a iv e r w ill n o t r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315, 1325 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) ( percur i am). W e have r evi ew ed the pl ea agr eementand the r es pons e fr om M r . T ovar - C havez ’ s couns el , and w e conc l ude thatthe Hahn fac t or s have be en s at i s fi ed. 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 agr 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