NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N os . 07- 4683, 08- 4661

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. EDWI N M OLI NA, J R. A ppel l anti n N o. 07- 4683

___

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KE VI N T . OR T E GA, A ppel l anti n N o. 08- 4661

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N os . 05- cr - 00670- 6 [M ol i na] an d 0 5 -cr-00 6 7 0 -2 [ O rt eg a] ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

_____________2 Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ar ch 26, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L A N D F U E N T E S , C i rcui tJudg es,

a n d KUG LE R, 

### * D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 31, 2010)

__________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

__________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. K evi n O rt ega a nd E dw i n M ol i na ar e co- defe ndant s w ho pl ed gui l tyt o cons pi r i ng to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se . O n a p p e a l, O rte g a c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea a nd M ol i na cha l l enges the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s cal cul at i on of hi s s ent enci ng gui del i nes . I n the mi ddl e of thei rtr i al , both O rt ega a nd M ol i na ent er ed i nt o pl ea a gr eement s w i th the governm entthatcont ai ned i dent i cal appel l at e w ai ver s . T he w ai ver s baral l cl ai m s on appea l exce ptthos e cont endi ng that( 1) the def endant ’ s s ent ence ex ce ed s the statu torym ax im u m ; ( 2 ) th e se n tenc ing jud g e e rron eo u slyd ep arted u p w ard f ro m th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s; o r (3 ) th e se n ten c in g ju d g e im p o se d a n u n re a so n a b le sent ence a bo ve the sent encing g uidel i ne rang e. O n ap peal, neither defen dan tm enti on s,

__________________ * H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtfor the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on.3

l etal one cha l l enges , the w ai ver , nordo theyexpl ai n how thei rchal l enges fal l w i thi n an e x c e p tio n to th e w a iv e r. M ol i na cont es t s the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s cal cul at i on of hi s s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange, s p e c if ic a lly th e C o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f a 2 -p o in t e n h a n c e m e n t f o r o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . M ol i na’ s chal l enge i s undoubt edl ycover ed bythe appe l l at e w ai ver , as the w ai ver p re c lu d e s a p p e a ls b ro u g h t u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . See U ni ted States v. P r i ce , 558 F. 3d 270, 284 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . M ol i na does notcont end thatthe w ai verw as notknow i ng and v o lu n tar y , tha t en f

o rc in g th e w a iv e r w o u ld re su lt i n a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e , o r th a t h is chal l enge t o the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s cal cul at i on of the gui del i nes fal l s underone of the thr ee e x c e p tio n s to th e w a iv e r. M o lin a ’s c laim is th u s u n re v iew a b le o n a p p e a l. W e w ill e n f o rc e th e w a iv e r o f

a p p e a l a n d A F F IR M M o lin a ’s s e n te n c e . O rt ega c ont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. H e as s ert s thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s appea l under 18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. H ow ever , the appe l l at e w ai veri n hi s pl ea a g re e m e n t sp e c if

ica llysta tes th a t h e w a iv e s a ll righ ts to a p p e a l o r c o llate ra llya ttac k h is convi ct i on ors ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. L i ke M ol i na, O rt ega m akes no argum ent as t o w hythis w ai ver doe s not appl y . T herefore, w e al so decl i ne t o r eac h the mer i t s of O rt ega’ s ar gum entand w i l l A FFIRM hi s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e .