T hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y thator 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 fth is a p p e a l. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2); 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther 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 ptunderthe d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l y di s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der a n d ju d g m e n t m a y b e c ite d u n d e r t h e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay31,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk 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. J AM ES M . ARM OUR,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3101 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 1 8 7 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , LU CE RO , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s filed a m o tio n to e n fo rc e th e p lea a g re e m e n t w ith d e fe n d a n t Ja m e s M . A rm o u r. In th e a g re e m e n t, M r. A rm o u r w a iv e d h is rig h t to appea l hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence on the cha r ge of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r ear m , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . M r . A r m our ’ s att or ney r es ponded thathe fi l ed a noti ce ofappea l t o pr ot ecthi s cl i ent ’ s i nt er es t s pur s uantA n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). 1 -2- t o Un itedS ta tes v . G a rr e tt , 402 F. 3d 1262, 1266- 67 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng couns el m us tfi l e a noti ce ofappea l i f cl i entr eques t s hi m t o do s o, even i f cl i ent has w ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ) . C ouns el i ndi cat ed hi s i nt entt o fi l e an A nd ers 1 b rie fin th e a p p e a l. C o n se q u e n tly , this c o u rt a ffo rd e d M r. A rm o u r a n o p p o rtu n ity t o fi l e an oppos i t i on t o the gover nm ent ’ s enfor cementm ot i on. H e di d not r es pond. T hi s cour tw i l l enfor ce acr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l s o l ong as the fol l ow i ng thr ee e l ement s ar e s at i s fi ed: ( 1) “the di s put ed appe al fa ll s w ith in the sco p e o f th e w aive r ofap p ell ate righ ts, ” (2 ) th e d efen d an t’ s w ai verof hi s appel l at e r i ght s w as know i ng and vol unt ar y , and ( 3) enfor ci ng the w a iv e r w ill n o t r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o fju s tic e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315, 1325 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) ( percur i am). W e have car eful l y r evi ew ed the pl ea a gr eementand the tr ans cr i ptof the hea r i ng atw hi ch M r . A r m ourent er ed hi s gui l t y pl ea. W e conc l ude thatthe Hahn fac t or s have be en s at i s fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e G R A N T the gover nm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the pl ea agr eementand D I SM I SS t he appe al . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue forthw i th.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt PerC ur i am