T hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator 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); 10t h C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her 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 ptundert he 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 ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk 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. RA F AE L L OE RA GAMBOA, al s o know n as C r ook,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6194 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 0 1 7 9 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , LU CE RO , and HA RTZ , 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 defe ndantR afa el L oer a G amboa. I n the agr eement , M r . G amboa w ai ved hi s r i ght to a p p e a l h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o n th e c h a rg e o f c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s. M r. G a m b o a ’s a tto rn e yd o e s n o t o p p o se th e m o tio n to e n fo rc e ; h e h a s m o v e d to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l o f re c o rd . M r. G a m b o a o bjec ts to- 2-

h is at torn ey ’s po sit ion . H e h as fil ed a p ro se resp o n se to the g o v ern m en t’ s m o tio n to e n fo rc e , w h ic h w e c o n s tru e lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 40 4 U. S. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ). M r . G amboa cont ends t hathe w as coer ced i nt o ent er i ng a gui l typl ea by var i ous pr os ecut or i al deci s i ons , i ncl udi ng pl aci ng hi m i n the s ame hol di ng cel l as a code fenda ntand other s i nvol ved i n the drug cons pi r acy . M r . G amboa cl ai m s he w as s t abbed a s a cons equenc e. H e al s o m ai nt ai ns thathi s att or neyand the fe der al di s t r i ctcourtj udge cons pi r ed t o coer ce hi m t o pl ead gui l ty . I n addi t i on, he a p p a re n tlya ss e rts th a t h e w a s n o t g iv e n a d e q u a te c o n sid e ra tio n fo r h is coo perat i on i n the i nv est i gati on of the drug co nspir acyand othercri m i nal cas es. T hi s courtw i l l enfor ce a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l s o l ong as t he fol l ow i ng t hr 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 of ap 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 ary , 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 f ju s tic e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c) (p er c u ri am ). M r . G amboa oppose s t he mot i on t o enfor ce ba s ed onl yon the s econd a nd t hi r d Hahn fa c to rs . T h e re fo re , w e d o n o t a d d re s s th e fir s t fa c to r. See Uni t edN evert hel es s , i ti s cl eart hatt hi s appea l fal l s w i thi n the s cope of t he w ai ver 1 of ap pell at e ri gh t s.

- 3- Stat es v. P or t er , 40 5 F . 3d 11 36 , 11 43 (10t h C i r. ) ( decli ning t o ad dress Hahn fa c to r n o t c o n te s te d b yd e fe n d a n t) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 5 5 0 (20 0 5 ). 1 Know i ng and Vol untar y Wai ver M r . G amboa as s ert s thathi s cons entt o the pl ea a gr eementand w ai verof appel l at e r i ght s w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . T o eval uat e thi s as s er t i on, w e cons i der“w hethert he l anguage of the pl ea a gr eements t at es t hat[he] ent er ed th e a g re e m e n t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily ” a n d w h e th e r th e re is “ a n a d e q u a te Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 11 col l oquy . ” Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 5 . It i s M r . G amboa’ s bur den t o demonstr at e r ecor d evi dence s how i ng thathe di d not u n d e rs ta n d th e w a iv e r. Id. at1329. M r. G a m b o a h a s fa iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n . T h e p lea a g re e m e n t cle a rly des cr i bed the cha r ge t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l ty , t he fa ctual bas i s fort he cha r ge, and the maxi m um penal t y . I n addi t i on, t he agr eements t at ed thatM r . G amboa

“ k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e [ d ] h is rig h t to . . . [a ]p p e a l o r c o llate ra lly c h a llen g e h is g u iltyp lea a n d a n yo th e r a sp e c t o f h is c o n v ictio n .” M o t. t o E n fo rc e , A tta c h . 2 , a t 7 . M or eover , att he pl ea c ol l oquy , M r . G amboa st at ed thathi s gui l typl ea w as “made vol unt ar i l yand compl et el yof [hi s ] ow n fr ee c hoi ce. ” Id. , A tta c h . 3 , a t 6 . I n addi t i on, he s t at ed thathe under s t ood thathe gave up hi s r i ghtt o pl ead not- 4-

gui l t y , t hathe w as s at i s fi ed w i t h the s ervi ces of hi s att orney , thathi s att or ney g a v e h im a p p ro p ria te a d v ice w ith re g a rd to h is g u iltyp lea , an d th a t h e g a v e u p h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. Id. at13- 15. H e al s o des cr i bed hi s part i ci pat i on i n the drug cons pi r acyon w hi ch hi s gui l t ypl ea w as bas ed, thus pr ovi di ng an ade quat e fa ctual b a s is fo r t h e p le a . See i d. at 16 -19 . F inally , h e d ec li n ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s in v ita tio n to a s k f

u rt h e r q u e s tio n s o r a d d re s s a n yc o n c e rn s . Id. a t 1 9 . M r . G amboa has pr es ent ed no evi dence t o demonstr at e thathe di d not under s t and the w ai ver . H i s concl us or ycl ai m s thathi s att or neyand the di s tr i ct j udge col l uded t o coer ce hi m i nt o pl eadi ng gui l tyar e bel i ed byhi s s t at ementthat he w as s at i s fi ed w i t h hi s at t or ney ’ s s ervi ces and bythe fr ee a nd open exc hange b e tw e e n M r. G a m b o a a n d th e ju d g e . S e e id . p a ss im . Ba s e d o n th i s r e c o r d we concl ude thatM r . G amboa know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l h is g u ilty p le a . Mis car r i age of Jus t i ce C ons t rui ng M r . G amboa’ s pr o s e pl eadi ng l i ber al l y , w e al s o cons i der w h e th e r e n fo rc in g th e w a iv e r w ill r e s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . M i s carr i age of

j us t i ce r es ul t s w her e: 1) the di s t r i ctcourtr el i ed on an i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct ors uch as r ace ; 2) i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i t h t he negot i at i on of the w ai verr ender s the w ai ver i n v a l i d ; 3 ) t h e s e n t e n c e e x c e e d s th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m; or4) t he w ai veri s otherw i s e unl aw ful . T o s at i s fythe l astfact or, t he err or m ustser i ou sl yaffect the fa i rness , i ntegr i t yor pub l i c reput at i on of judi ci al proceed i ng s.W e do notaddr es s M r . G amboa’ s bal d as s er t i ons t hatt he r ecor d w as 2 t amper ed w i t h t o hi s detr i m ent . E ven s o, he has nots how n how anyal l eged a ltera tio n a ffe c ted h is p lea a g re e m e n t.

- 5- Uni t ed Stat es v. Maldonado , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (q u o ta tio n s , a lte ra tio n s , a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 5 7 7 (2 0 0 5 ). M r. G a m b o a c o n ten d s th a t h e g a v e v a lu a b le in fo rm a tio n , at g re a t risk to h im s e lf a n d h is fa m ily, to a C a lifo rn ia p o lic e o ffic e r a n d o th e r a u th o ri tie s . H e cl ai m s t hati n excha nge fort hati nform at i on, the cha r ges w er e t o have be en d ism iss e d . H e f

u rth e r c laim s th a t h e w a s re q u ire d to file a p ro se m o tio n to di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm entbeca us e hi s att or neyr efus ed hi s i ns truct i on t o do s o. 2 W e c o n stru e th e se a rg u m e n ts a s a c laim th a t th e w a iv e r is u n law f u l. T h e e v e n ts o f

w h ich M r. G a m b o a c o m p lain s o c c u rre d p rio r to h is g u ilty p l e a . Byh i s k n o wi n g a n d v o l u n t a ryg u i l typ l e a , M r . Ga mb o a wa i v e d t h e c l a i ms b ase d o n tho se e v en ts be ca u se th eyd o n o t cha ll en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Salaz ar , 323 F. 3d 852, 856 ( 10th C i r . 2003) (“ [ I]t is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t a v o lu n tar ya n d u n c o n d iti o n a l g u iltyp lea w a iv e s a ll non-j ur i s di ct i onal defe ns es . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatM r . G amboa has notm ethi s bur den t o per s uade thi s courtt hatt he w ai vers er i ous l yaffect ed the fa ir n e s s , in te g ri ty o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . See Maldonado , 410 F. 3d at1233 ( hol di ng defe ndantbear s bur den of pe r s uas i on th a t e n fo rc e m e n t o f

w a iv e r i s u n la w f

u l) .- 6- C oncl us i on W e G R A N T A t t or neyShannonhous e’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw as couns el for M r . G amboa and t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the pl ea a gr eement . A ppeal D I SM I SSE D . T he mandat e s hal l i s s ue forthw i th. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM