* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This order is not binding precedent, except under the do ctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court gener ally disfavors the citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be cited under t he terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 21 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BILLY MINH LE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-6137 (D.C. No. CR-01-138-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER *

Before EBEL , HENRY and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

Defendant Billy Minh Le pled guilty to conspiracy t o distribute a list 1 precursor chemical, pseudoephedrine, which can be u sed to manufacture methamphetamine. (Aplt. App. at 24, 48.) As part of his plea agreement, Defendant waived his right to appeal or to collater ally attack his “guilty plea and- 2 -

any other aspect of his conviction, including but n ot limited to any rulings on pretrial suppression motions or any other pretrial dispositions of motions and issues.” (Plea Agreement at 8.) He also waived th e right to appeal his sentence and the manner in which it was determined, provided that it fell within or below the applicable Sentencing Guideline range. (Id. at 8-9.) On November 20, 2001, before accepting his guilty plea, the district court engaged in an extensive Rule 11 colloquy with Defendant to ensure that his plea was knowing and voluntary. (Change-of-Plea Tr. at 4–18.) Satisfied that it wa s, the court found Defendant guilty as charged and set a date for sentencing. ( Id. at 18.) On April 9, 2002, Defendant filed a motion to withd raw his guilty plea. (Aplt. App. at 21.) In an Order filed April 16, th e court denied his motion. (Id. at 47.) Defendant was sentenced to 168 months in p rison, the low end of the applicable Guideline range, as well as three years of supervised release. (Aplt. App. at 49-50.) He now appeals the denial of his m otion to withdraw his plea and argues that he did not enter it knowingly and volun tarily. (Aplt. Br. at 1.) “A defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of the statutory right to appeal his sentence is generally enforceable.” Uni ted States v. Elliott , 264 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If Defendant’s waiver is effective, we would certainly overreach our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal when the plea agreement depri ved Defendant of the right to- 3 -

appeal. We do, however, have jurisdiction to deter mine our jurisdiction.” United States v. Rubio , 231 F.3d 709, 712 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omi tted). Having reviewed the transcript of the district court’s thorough Rule 11 colloquy with Defendant, we are left with no doubt that Defendant entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. We will hol d Defendant to the terms of his plea agreement, which waived his right to appeal orcollaterally attack his plea, conviction or sentence. Accordingly, we DISMISS De fendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge