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 ar c h 2,2007 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. S AM M Y R ODR I GUE Z - DE L GADO,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2338 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 9 7 7 RB) (D . N .M .)

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

D efe ndantSam m yR odr i guez- D el gado w as i ndi ct ed w i th a code fenda nton char ges of cons pi r acyand pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne ar i s i ng out of an i nci denti nvol vi ng 14. 99 gr ams of coc ai ne. M r . R odr i guez- D el gado pl ed g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te fiv e k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( A ) and 18 U . S. C . § 2. H i s pl ea- 2-

agr eements t at es t hathe “know i ngl yw ai ves the r i ghtt o appea l thi s convi ct i on and/ oranys ent ence w i t hi n t he s t atut orym axi m um author i zed byl aw . ” Pl ea A gr eementat5. T he agr eemental s o r eci t es hi s under s t andi ng thathe fa ced a sen tenc e o f “ n o t l ess th an ten (1 0 ) no r m o re tha n li fe ” a n d “a m an d atory s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm of atl eas tfi ve ( 5) y ear s . ” Id. at 2. T h e d istri ct co u rt s e n t e n c e d M r . R o d r i g u e z - D e l g a d o t o 1 2 0 m o n th s i n p r i s o n fo l l o w e d b y a fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and he appeal ed. T he governm enthas now m oved t o enfor ce the appe al w ai veri n the pl ea a gr eement , pur s uantt o Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) . W e gr antthe mot i on a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. U n d er Hahn , w e cons i der“( 1) w hetherthe di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n t he s cope of t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s ; ( 2) w hetherthe defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ; and ( 3) w hetherenfor ci ng the w ai ver w oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. at1325. T he mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce p ro n g re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to sh o w (a ) h is s e n ten c e re lied o n a n im p e rm iss ib le fac t 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 verr ender ed the w ai veri nval i d; ( c) hi s s ent ence exce eded the s t atut or ym axi m um ; or( d) hi s appea l w ai veri s otherw i s e unl aw ful and the err or“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. at1327 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on- 3-

addr es s es t hes e cons i der at i ons , expl ai ni ng w hynone underm i nes the appe al w a iv e r h e re . M r . R odr i guez- D el gado oppos es the governm ent ’ s m ot i on s ol el yon the i neffect i ve- as s i s t ance componentof the mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce t es t : “A s i s s t at ed i n [M r . R odr i guez- D el gado’ s ] docket i ng s t at ement , the i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s [hi s ] pr i m aryi s s ue on appe al and i s ther efor e notbarr ed bythe a g re e m e n t as u rg e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t.” A p p e llan t’s R e sp o n se to th e M o tio n to E n fo rc e P lea A g re e m e n t at 1 ; s ee D ocket i ng St at ementat4, 6 ( om i t t i ng form al des i gnat i on of i s s ues , butr eques t i ng or al ar gum ent“on compl i cat ed i s s ues of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l as w e ll as o th e r iss u e s” ). T h e re a re tw o b a sic d e fic ie n c ie s in th is a tte m p t to k e e p th e p re s e n t a p p e a l a liv e . M r . R odr i guez- D el gado’ s concl us or yr efe r ence t o hi s l egal r epr es ent at i on gi ves no i ndi cat i on t hathi s obj ect i on r el at es – as i tm us tt o have a nybear i ng on th e e n fo rc e m e n t o f

h is a p p e a l w a iv e r – to “ in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in con necti on w i th the neg oti ati on of the app eal w aiver r ender [i ng] the w ai ver i nval i d. ” Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 7 ; cf . Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1 1 4 4 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 55 0 (2 0 0 5 ) (s im ilarlyre f u sin g to v o id appea l w ai veri n l i ghtof al l eged s ent enci ng err or , beca us e “[ t ] he r el evant ques t i on . . . i s notw hether[the] s ent ence i s unl aw ful . . . , butw hether. . . [the] ap p e a l w a ive r itse lf [is] u n e n fo rc e a b le ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )). W ith o u t th is s p e c ific co n n ec ti o n to the ap p ea l w aive r, a g en era li ze d “o bjecti o n ab o u t tri al co u n sel’s- 4-

per form ance [i s ] i ns uffi ci entt o open the Hahn doorforthi s appea l . ” Uni t ed S ta tes v . Q u in ta n a -Na v a re tte , 1 9 2 F . A p p ’x 7 9 0 , 7 9 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); c f. Uni t ed Stat es v. Sar ber , 1 9 6 F . A p p ’x 6 7 3 , 6 7 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g a rg u m e n t to c irc u m v e n t ap p e a l w a iv e r b a se d o n c laim o f e rro r u n teth e re d to w a iv e r itse lf “ is fundament al l ym i s di r ect ed” unde rpr i nci pl es cl ar i fi ed i n Hahn and P or t er ). E ven i f M r . R odr i guez- D el gado i nt ends t o chal l enge c ouns el ’ s per form ance in a re sp e c t m a ter iallyre lev a n t to th e a p p e a l w a iv e r, th is a p p e llate p ro c e e d in g is nott he pr opervehi cl e fort hatchal l enge. B eca us e the r ecor d befor e us i ncl udes onl yform al r epr es ent at i ons byM r . R odr i guez- D el gado r efl ect i ng the ade quacyof h is re p re se n tatio n in th e p lea p ro c e e d in g s, a n yin e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e c laim w o u ld have t o r el yon extr a- r ecor d excha nges betw een c ouns el and cl i entbey ond our pur vi ew . Such a cl ai m m us tbe br oughti n a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 ra th e r t h a n b ya p p e a l, Un itedS ta tes v . D e la c ru z-S o to , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 8 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) , and “[ t ] hi s rul e appl i es even w her e a de fenda nts eeks t o i nval i dat e an appel l at e w ai verbas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , ” P or t er , 405 F. 3d at 1144 ( ci t i ng Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d at 13 2 7 n . 1 3 ). Ind ee d , M r. R o d ri g u ez -D elga d o ’s pl ea a gr eementpr es erves hi s r i ghtt o br i ng a § 2255 m ot i on “on the i s s ue of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l.” P lea A g re e m e n t at 5 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e sh a ll gr antt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s thi s appea l , w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o the m e rits o f

a n yin e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e c laim s M r. R o d rig u e z -D e lg a d o m a ye lec t to p u rs u e in c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 .- 5-

T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on i s gr ant ed and thi s appea l i s D I SM I SSE D . T he m andat e s hal l i s s ue fort hw i t h. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM