UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. AARON RAMIREZ-SAUCEDO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-3223 (D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10045-JTM-1) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , HOLMES , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

The government has moved to enforce the plea agreement it entered into with

Aaron Ramirez-Saucedo. Mr. Ramirez-Sau cedo pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to reentering the country after being removed subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. Unde r the terms of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal any matter concerning his prosecu tion, conviction, or sentence, if the sentence imposed by th e district court was within the guideline

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### June 24, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - range determined by the court to be appropriate. The court sentenced Mr. Ramirez-Saucedo to 46 months’ imprisonm ent, which is at the low end of the guideline range determined by the court. Despite the appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Mr. Ramirez-Sa ucedo filed an appeal. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver pursuant to United States

v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Hahn requires enforcement of an appeal waiver if (1) “the disputed appeal fall s within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights”; (2) the defendant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights”; and (3) “enforci ng the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id . at 1325. In his response to the government’s mo tion, Mr. Ramirez-Saucedo raises a single issue: that a defe ndant cannot knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to appeal a sentence that has ye t to be imposed. As Mr. Ramirez-Saucedo recognizes, however, this very argument was re jected by the en banc court in Hahn , 359 F.3d at

1327. He therefore asks that this court revisit this pr ecedent. But regardless of whether there is a good reason for this court to rethin k its position in Hahn , one panel

of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel, much less of the en banc

court. See, e.g., United States v. White , 782 F.3d 1118, 1126-27 (10th Cir. 2015). (“[O]ne panel of this court cannot overrule the judgment of another panel absent en banc consideration or an intervening Supr eme Court decision that is contrary to or invalidates our previous analysis.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).- 3 - Mr. Ramirez-Saucedo does not argue that he did not know that he was waiving his right to appeal, and our review of th e plea agreement and the transcript of the change of plea hearing convinces us that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, see Hahn , 359 F.3d at 1235 (looking to language of plea agreement and adequacy of Rule 11 colloquy in asse ssing whether appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary). Mr. Ramirez- Saucedo does not argue that any issue he wishes to raise on appeal is outside the scope of the appeal waiver, nor do es he contend that enforcing the waiver would resu lt in a miscarriage of justice. So we need not address

these issues. See United States v. Porter , 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). The motion to enforce is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam