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 t houtor 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 t h 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 

### Ju ly19,2007 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. DI ANE C. CH RI S T E NS E N, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4277 ( D . C. N o. 2: 04 - CR - 40 - D S)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e TY M KOVI CH , EBEL , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndantD i ane C. C hr i s t ens en pl eade d gui l t yt o cons pi r acyt o i m pede, i m pai r , obs t ruct , and defeatt he l aw ful governm entfunct i ons of the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. H erpl ea a gr eements t at es t hat s he “know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l yand expr es s l yw ai ve[s ] [her ] r i ghtt o appea l any s ent ence i m pos ed . . . and the manneri n w hi ch the s ent ence i s det erm i ned, on any-2-

of the gr ounds s etfor t h i n [18 U . S. C . § 3742] oron anygr ound w hat ever , exce pt

. . . [for ] ( 1) a s ent ence above the maxi m um penal t ypr ovi ded i n t he s t atut es of convi ct i on as s etfor t h i n [the pl ea a gr eement ] ; and ( 2) a s ent ence above the hi ghe n d o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e a s d e ter m in e d b yth e d istric t co u rt a t s e n te n c in g . . . .” M o tio n to E n fo rc e , A tta c h m e n t A (P le a A g re e m e n t) a t 3 . T he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned a gui del i ne r ange of 41 t o 51 m ont hs and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 41 m onths , w el l w i t hi n t he fi ve- y ears t atut or ym axi m um r eci t ed i n t he pl ea a gr eementand att he l ow - end of the gui del i ne r ange. N onethel es s , defe ndant appea l ed. T he governm enthas now m oved t o enfor ce de fenda nt ’ s appea l w ai ver u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) . W e gr ant th e m o tio n 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 hethert he di s put ed appe al fal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s ; ( 2) w hethert he 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 t he 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. D efe ndantcont ends t hat herappea l does notfal l w i t hi n t he t erm s of the appe al w ai vers he ac cept ed, and t hatherw ai verof appe al r i ght s w as notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed beca us e s he di d notw ai ve the r i ghtt o appea l an i l l egal s ent ence . She cl ai m s t hat h er se n tenc e is i ll eg al un d er B l akel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , beca us e the di s t r i ctcour tm ayhave e n h a n c e d h e rs e n t e n c e b a s e d o n fa c t s n o tfo u n d b y a j u r y.-3-

D e fe n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t is p a ten tlyw ith o u t m e rit. A se n ten c e is illeg a l if it

“ is a m b ig u o u s w ith re sp e c t to th e tim e a n d m a n n e r in w h ich it i s to b e se rv e d , is in ter n a llyc o n tra d icto ry , o m its a ter m re q u ire d to b e im p o se d b ysta tu te, is uncert ai n as t o t he s ubs t ance of the s ent ence , ori s a s ent ence w hi ch the j udgm ent of convi ct i on di d notauthor i ze. ” Un itedS ta tes v . D o u g h e rty , 106 F. 3d 1514, 1 5 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 727, 739 n. 10 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( hol di ng t erm “i l l egal sen tenc e” is r ese rve d fo r i n stan ce s w h ere sen tenc e e x ce ed s statutorym ax im u m ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 495 ( 2005) . D efe ndantdoes notar gue, nordo anyof the m at er i al s s ubm i t t ed t o us s ugges t , t hathers ent ence i s defi ci enti n anys uch f u n d a m e n ta l r e s p e c t. M or eover , as not ed, defe ndantexpr es s l yagr eed t o w ai ve herr i ghtt o appea l “the m an n er in w h ich th e se n tenc e is d eterm ined , . . . , ex ce p t . . . [fo r] ( 1 ) a s e n te n c e a b o v e th e m a x im u m p e n a lty p ro v id e d in th e s ta tu te o f c o n v ic tio n . . . , and ( 2) a s ent ence above the hi gh- end of the gui del i ne r ange a s det erm i ned byt he d istric t co u rt a t se n ten c in g .” P lea A g re e m e n t at 3 . D e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e is w i t hi n t he s t atut or ym axi m um and att he l ow - end of the gui del i ne r ange. T he pl ea c o llo q u yd e m o n stra tes th a t d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilya g re e d to th is appea l w ai ver . T hus , t he s ent ence i m pos ed compl i es w i t h t he t erm s of the pl ea a g re e m e n t a n d th e u n d e rs ta n d in g e x p re s s e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t a t th e p le a h e a ri n g .-4-

D efe ndanthas notdemonst r at ed thatherappea l fal l s out s i de the s cope of w ai ver o r t h a t s h e d id n o t k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly ag re e to th e a p p e a l w a iv e 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 t h 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 fort hw i t h.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM