T hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator 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); 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i tt 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 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 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED U n ite dS ta te s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls

T e n th C irc u it 

### Jan u ary9,2007 E li s abeth A .Shu m aker 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. E F R A IN M E N D O Z A B A R B O S A , al so know n as J uan J os e A l ver ez, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6267 ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CR- 1 9 1 - 0 0 1 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M UR P HY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndantE fr ai n M endozaB arbos a pl ed gui l tyt o one countof i nt er s t at e or for ei gn tr avel ortr ans port at i on i n ai d of r acke t eer i ng ent erpr i s es , i n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 (a )(3 ), an d o n e c o u n t o f u n law f u l en tryb ya re m o v e d a lien , in viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) . P ursuantt o the pl ea agreem ent, M r. B arbosa w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o “[a ] ppeal orcol l at er al l ychal l enge hi s gui l typl ea a nd any-2-

otheras pectof hi s convi ct i on, . . . [and t o] [a] ppeal , col l at er al l ychal l enge, or m o v e to m o d if

y. . . h is s e n ten c e a s im p o se d b yth e C o u rt a n d th e m a n n e r in w hi ch the s ent ence i s det erm i ned, pr ovi ded the s ent ence i s w i thi n orbel ow the a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e d e ter m in e d b yth e C o u rt to a p p lyto th is c a se .” M o t. t o E nfor ce, E x. 2, at5. H e w as s ent ence d t o 215 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as w i thi n the appl i cabl e advi s orygui del i ne r ange forthe offens es of 210 t o 262 m on ths. M r . B arbos a fi l ed a not i ce of appea l chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence . T he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the appe al w ai veri n i t s pl ea a gr eement w i th M r . B arbos a. I n r es pons e, M r . B arbos a’ s att orneyfi l ed an A nd ers br i ef st at i ng her bel i ef that there are no m eri t ori ou s ground s upo n w hich M r. B arbosa can appeal hi s s ent ence orur ge deni al of the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the a p p e a l w a iv e r, a n d s h e re q u e s te d p e rm is s io n to w ith d ra w a s c o u n s e l. See A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8, 74 4 (196 7) ( authori zi ng cou nsel t o reque st perm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw w her e couns el cons ci ent i ous l yexami nes a ca s e and det erm i nes thatan appe al w oul d be w hol l yfr i vol ous ) . T hi s courtgave M r. B a rb o s a a n o p p o rtu n ity to file a p ro s e re s p o n s e to th e m o tio n to e n fo rc e , s ee id . , a n d g r a n t e d h i m a n e x t e n s i o n o f t i me t o fi l e h i s r e s p o n s e t o th e mot i o n . To d a te , M r. B a rb o s a h a s n o t file d a re s p o n s e to th e m o tio n to e n fo rc e . U n d er A nd ers , w e have conduct ed an i ndepende ntr evi ew and exa m i nat i on o f th e m o tio n to e n fo rc e . Se e id . T h is co u rtw il l enfo rce a c ri m inal d efen d an t’ s-3-

w a iv e r o f

h is rig h t to a p p e a l so lo n g a s th e fo llo w in g th re e e lem e n ts a re sa tisfied : (1 ) “ th e d is p u te d a p p e a l fa lls w ith in th e s c o p e o f th e w a iv e r o f

a p p e lla te ri g h ts ,” ( 2) the defendant ’ s w ai verof hi s appel l at e r i ght s w as know i ng and vol unt ary , and (3 ) e n fo rc in g th e 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 f ju 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 revi ew ed the pl ea agreem ent, the tr anscri pts of the plea and sentenci ng heari ng s, and the r es pons e fr om M r . B arbos a’ s couns el , and 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 governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the appe al w ai veri n the pl ea a gr eement , G R A N T couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , and 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 P E R C UR I AM