UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MARTIN CARRILLO-LOPEZ, a/k/a Jonathan Pacheco Bernal, Defendant-Appellant. No. 14-6112 (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00006-C-1) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Appellant Martin Carrillo-Lopez entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with the exception of a few

limited circumstances not relevant here. The district court sentenced him to 70 months’ imprisonment, which was the low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez filed an appeal despite his waiver; the government seeks

* This panel has determined that oral ar gument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 22, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - to enforce the plea agreem ent and asks this court to dismiss the appeal. See United

States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) ( en banc ) ( per curiam ). The plea agreement, which Mr. Carri llo-Lopez signed, states that he “knowingly and voluntarily waiv es” his right to appeal hi s sentence or conviction. Plea Agreement at 7. And th e transcript of the hearing at which Mr. Carrillo-Lopez changed his plea to “guilty ” evidences his understanding that he was agreeing to waive his right to appeal, as well as his understanding that the c ourt would be advised in sentencing by the Sentenci ng Guidelines range and th at it was not bound by any predictions his attorney may have made about what that range would be. Change of

Plea Tr. at 9-12. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argues that his appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary because it was based on his a ttorney’s lower pred iction of what the guidelines range would be. Th e district court, however, wa s very clear in the plea colloquy that the court was not bound by a ny predictions made by others regarding what the guidelines range. He further argues that his waiver resu lted in a miscarriage of justice because his senten ce was “otherwise unlawful.” Hahn , 359 F.3d at 1327.

His basis for this assertion is that “counsel for the gover nment, in advocating at the sentencing hearing for a ‘low-end guidelines sentence,’ did not act in good faith in light of Mr. [Carrillo-Lopez’s] safety-valve eligibility.” Re sp. at 2. He states that this “negatively impacts th e fairness, integrity, or pub lic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s one-sentence statement is insufficient to- 3 - establish (or even argue) as to how the fair ness, integrity, or pub lic reputation of the judicial proceeding was negatively impacted . Enforcing this knowing and voluntary

waiver will not result in a miscarriage of ju stice. The Motion to Enforce Appeal Waiver is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam