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 23,2007 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. ARTURO TR EL LE S - ALCAZAR,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4224 ( D . C. N o. 2: 06 - CR - 19 8- TS)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , EBEL , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

A rtu ro T re lles -A lca z a r p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f a fo u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t, admi t t i ng he pos s es s ed w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e overfi ftygr ams of a mi xtur e or su b sta n c e c o n tain in g m e th a m p h e tam in e in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). H is pl ea a gr eementr eci t es t hathe know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l yand expr es s l yw ai ve[s ] [hi s ] r i ghtt o appea l anys ent ence i m pos ed on [hi m ] , and the manneri n w hi ch the-2-

s e n t e n c e i s d e t e r mi n e d , o n a n yo f th e g r o u n d s s e tfo r th i n [ 1 8 U. S . C. § 3742] oron anygr ound w hat ever , exce pt. . . ( 1) a s ent ence above t he maxi m um penal t ypr ovi ded i n the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on as s et for t h i n [the agr eement ] ; and ( 2) a s ent ence above the hi gh end of the g u ideline ra n g e a s d eterm ined b ythe d istri ct co u rtat sen tenc ing , o r, in th e e v e n t th a t n o su c h d e ter m in a tio n is m a d e b yth e d istric t co u rt, a se n ten c e a b o v e th e h ig h -e n d o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e a s s e t fo rth in th e fin a l p re se n ten c e re p o rt. St at ementbyD ef. i n A dvance of Pl ea of G ui l ty , at3. T he di s tr i ctcour tfound the gui del i ne r ange t o be 87- 108 m onths and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 87 m onths , far undert he s t atut or ym axi m um of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . M r . T r el l es - A l caz arappea l ed, an d the g o v ern m en t m o v ed to en fo rce h is ap p ea l w aive r un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) . W e gr antthe mot i on and d ism iss 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 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. 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 hytheydo notunderm i ne the appe al w a iv e r h e re . C ouns el forM r . T r el l es - A l caz arr es ponded t o the mot i on by( a) s t at i ng t hat t he onl yl egi t i m at e i s s ue s t i l l avai l abl e forr evi ew w oul d be i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i t h t he appe al w ai ver , butthati tw oul d be a c onfl i ctof i nt er es tforhi m t o as s es s hi s ow n effect i venes s ; and ( b) as ki ng thatal t ernat i ve couns el be appoi nt ed fort he purpos e of c onduct i ng thatas s es s m ent . A pl t . R es p. t o M ot i on forE nfor cementof Pl ea A gr eement , at2 ( fi l ed D ec. 26, 2006) . T he cl erk s enta not i ce t o M r . T r el l es - A l caz aron J anuary24, 2007, i nform i ng hi m of t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , d i r e c t i n g h i m t o fi l e h i s o w n r e s p o n s e w i th i n fo u r t e e n d a ys s how i ng w hyhi s appea l w ai vers houl d notbe enfor ced, and w arni ng that noncompl i ance coul d r es ul ti n di s m i s s al of the appe al . A tthe end of thatper i od, M r . T r el l es - A caz arfi l ed a mot i on forenl ar gementof t i m e t o r es pond and for appoi nt m entof di ffe r entcouns el . H i s m ot i on w as gr ant ed as t o the r eques t ed ext ens i on, w hi ch al l ow ed hi m an addi t i onal four t een da y s t o r es pond. T hi s s econd d e a d lin e h a s lo n g s in c e p a s s e d w ith o u t a n yf u rt h e r s u b m is s io n . T he mat er i al s befor e us i ndi cat e thatthe onl ypot ent i al i s s ue t o be r ai s ed co n ce rns in effe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel i n co n n ec ti o n w ith the a p p ea l w aive r. B utt hi s appea l i s nott he pr opervehi cl e forthatchal l enge. T he r ecor d befor e us i ncl udes form al r epr es ent at i ons byM r . T r el l es - A l caz arr efl ect i ng onl ythe adequa cyof hi s r epr es ent at i on i n the pr ocee di ngs , s o anyi neffect i ve as s i s t ance-4-

cl ai m w oul d have t o r el yon extr a- r ecor d excha nges betw een c ouns el and cl i ent b e y o n d o u rp u r v i e w. S u c h a c l a i m mu s tb e r a i s e d b ymo t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 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 , 414 F. 3d 1158, 1 1 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), an d “ [ t]h is ru le a p p lies e v e n w h e re a d e fe n d a n t se e k s to i nval i dat e an a ppel l at e w ai verbas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1144 ( 10th C i r . ) ( ci t i ng Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1327 n .1 3 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 5 5 0 (20 0 5 ). W e n o te th at M r. T rell es-A lcaz ar’s pl ea a gr eemental s o w ai ved col l at er al r evi ew , St at ementbyD ef. i n A dvance of Pl ea of G ui l t y , at4, but , l i ke the appe al w ai ver , thatdoes notbaran i neffect i ve a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m r e l a t i n g t o n e g o t i a t i o n s l e a d i n g t o th e w a i v e ri t s e l f. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e gr antt he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s thi s appea l , though thatrul i ng does notpr ecl ude orpr ej udi ce a n i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m pr oper l ypur s ued thr ough c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 . T h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s mo t i o n i s GR ANT E D a n d th i s a p p e a l i s DI S M I S S E D. A p p e llan t’s m o tio n fo r a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l is D E N IE D . T h e m a n d a te s h a ll i s s ue fort hw i t h. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM