UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.MANUEL ALBERTO MICHELGALAVIZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-4138 (D.C. No. 2:16-CR-0 0326-JNP-EJF-1) (D. Utah)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , KELLY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Manuel Alberto Michel-Galaviz p leaded guilty to one count of co nspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and one count of conspiracy to distr ibute heroin. The parties entered into a Fed. R. C rim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreem ent in which they stipulated that a reasonable se ntence would be no more than 84 months’ imprisonment. The district cour t accepted the pl ea agreement a nd imposed a sentence of 66 months. 1 Despite the broad appeal wai ver in his plea agreement,

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata , and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 1 0th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 The court also imposed a consec utive 24-month sentence in a se parate case at the same time (D.C. No. 2:18-CR-93-JNP), bringing the total sen tence to 90 months. See R., Vol. 1 at 230; id ., Vol. 3 at 76. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 11, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mr. Michel-Galaviz filed a notic e of appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Counsel filed a response to t he motion to enforce citing Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Resp. at 1, and stating his belief that “t here are no non-frivolous issues to be raised on behalf of Mr. Michel-Galav iz for appellate purposes,” id . at 4. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw. We gave Mr. Michel-Galaviz an opportunity to respond to the motion to e nforce, but he has not done so. Under Hahn , we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate r ights; (2) whether the defend ant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellat e rights; and (3) whether enforc ing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of jus tice.” 359 F.3d at 1325. We hav e reviewed the proceedings in accordance w ith our obligation under Anders

. See 386 U.S. at 744. 2
We conclude the Hahn factors have been satisfied, a nd there is no non-frivolous argument to make against enforc ing the appellate waiver. Accor dingly, we grant the

2 We note that the government’s m otion to enforce purports to at tach: the plea agreement, transcript of the C hange of Plea Hearing on January 30, 2018, and transcript of the Sentencing Hearing on August 17, 2018. See Mot. to Enf. at 2. However, there were no attachment s filed with the motion. We h ave therefore reviewed all of these doc uments from the record. See R., Vol. 1 at 195-201 (Plea Agreement); id ., Vol. 2 at 26-49 (Change of Plea Hearing), id ., Vol 3 at 22-83 (Sentencing Hearing).3 motion to enforce and dismiss th is appeal. We also grant couns el’s motion to withdraw. Entered for the Court Per Curiam