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 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 10t h C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### M ay30,2007 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. OLI VER KEI TH BROWN ER, al s o know n as B i g Papa,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 6066 ( D. C. No. 0 3 - CR- 2 4 2 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , M UR P HY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndantO l i verK ei t h B r ow nerpl eade d gui l tyi n M ar ch 2004, t o one countof cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of a s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n i n g a d e t e c t a b l e a mo u n to f c o c a i n e b a s e ( c r a c k ) , a n d 5 0 0 g r a ms o r m o re o f a su b stan ce co n tai n ing a d etec table a m o u n t of co ca ine. B row n er’s pl ea a gr eementi ncl uded an a ppeal w ai ver , w i th cert ai n exce pt i ons . B r ow nerhas- 2-

fi l e d a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g th e s e n t e n c e h e r e c e i v e d o n r e ma n d f r o m a pr i orappea l , and the governm enthas m oved t o enfor ce Brow ner ’ s appea l w ai ver u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) . W e gr ant th e m o tio n a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. B r ow neragr eed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s gui l typl ea a nd anyother as pectof hi s convi ct i on, ort o appea l “hi s s ent ence as i m pos ed bythe C our tand th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e se n ten c e is d e ter m in e d , p ro v id e d th e se n ten c e is w ith in o r b e lo w th e a p p lica b le g 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 cas e, ” exc eptt he appe al w ai verdoes “notappl yt o appea l s orchal l enges bas ed on change s i n t he l aw r efl ect ed i n T enth C i r cui torSupr eme C our tcas es deci ded a f t e rt h e d a t e o f

t h i s a g r e e me n tt h a ta r e h e l d b yth e Te n th Ci r c u i to rS u p r e me C our tt o have r etr oact i ve effec t . ” M ot i on t o E nfor ce, E x. 2 ( Pl ea A gr eement ) at 7 . T h e d istri ct co u rtinit ial lyim p o sed a li fe sen tenc e, rej ec ti n g B row n er’s argum ent that the m and at oryapp l i cat i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes t o im po se t hats ent ence w as pot ent i al l yi ncons i s t entw i th B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 54 2 U. S. 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ). B r ow nerappea l ed, cl ai m i ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and sen tenc ing erro r un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , deci ded a f te r t h e d a te o f

B ro w n e r’ s g u ilty p le a a n d s e n te n c in g . B ookerhel d thatthe m andat or ySent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e uncons t i tut i onal , and r ender ed the G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry. Id . at245- 46. T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the- 3-

a p p e a l w a iv e r, b u t late r w ith d re w its m o tio n to e n fo rc e th e a p p e a l w a iv e r w ith r es pectt o t he B ookere rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 413 F. 3d 1146, 1151- 53 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hata B ookerc l a i m d o e s fa l l wi th i n a “ c h a n g e i n l a w” ex ce p ti o n to an ap p ea l w aive r). O n ap p ea l, this co u rtd ism issed B row n er’s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im (b e c a u se su c h a c laim c a n o n lyb e ra ise d in a col l at er al pr ocee di ng under28 U . S. C . § 2255) , and r emanded t he ca s e t o the di s t r i ctcourtforr es ent enci ng beca us e i t s m andat or yappl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes to im p o se a life se n ten c e c o n stitu ted n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ookere rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ow ner , 2 1 1 F . A p p ’x 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 -85 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). O n rem and , t he d i stri ctcou rtsent enced B row ner t o thi rty -fi ve y ears ’ im p ri so n m en t, w h ich is b elow the s tatu torym ax im u m an d the a d v isory Sent enci ng G ui del i ne r ange of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . B r ow nerhas now fi l ed a not i ce of appe al fr om t hats ent ence , s t at i ng i n hi s docket i ng s t at ementthathe w as “deni ed hi s r i ght s undert he Si xt h A m endmentathi s r es ent enci ng. ” D ocket i ng St at ementat4. A s not ed, t he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the appe al w aive r. U n d er Hahn , w e w i l l enfor ce a n appea l w ai veri f ( 1) “the di s put ed appe al fal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s ”; ( 2) “the defendant know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ”; and ( 3) “enfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d [not ] r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. a t 1 3 2 5 . B r ow nercont ends hi s appea l i s notw i thi n the s cope of the appe al w ai ver b e c a u s e h e wa s r e s e n t e n c e d b a s e d o n a c h a n g e i n Te n th Ci r c u i ta n d S u p r e me- 4-

C o u r tl a w , n a m e l y B ooker . H e a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se h e d id n o t w a iv e h is rig h t to appea l chal l enges bas ed on cha nges i n T enth C i r cui torSupr eme C our tl aw , and beca us e hi s r es ent ence r es ul t ed fr om a s ucce s s ful chal l enge ba s ed on a c h a n g e - i n - l a w B ookercl ai m , i tfoll ow s that hi s appea l from that r esent ence m ust fa ll w ith in th e c h a n g e -i n -t h e -l a w e x c e p tio n to h is a p p e a l w a iv e r. W e d is a g re e . T he exc ept i on t o B r ow ner ’ s appea l w ai verappl i es onl yt o “appe al s orchal l enges bas ed on cha nges i n t he l aw r efl ect ed i n T enth C i r cui torSupr eme C our tcas es deci ded af

t ert he dat e of thi s agr eement . ” Pl ea A gr eementat7. T he cl ai m s that B r ow ners eeks t o r ai s e on appe al ar e thatther e w as a s ent enci ng di s par i tyerr or and t hat hi s Sixth A m end m ent r i gh t s w ere vi olat ed at hi s r esent encing. T hese cl ai m s do not , on t hei rfac e, fal l w i thi n thi s exce pt i on beca us e nei therar e bas ed o n a n yp o st-p lea c h a n g e in th e law . In re sp o n se to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to e n fo rc e th e a p p e a l w a iv e r, B ro w n e r h a s n o t ar ticu late d a n ym o re sp e c ific a p p e l l a t e c h a l l e n g e t h a tc o me s wi th i n th e c h a n g e - i n - th e - l a w e x c e p t i o n . T h u s , we concl ude thatB r ow ner ’ s pr opos ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the appe al w ai ver, no ti t s excep t i on s. B r ow neral s o cont ends t hatenfor ci ng the appe al w ai verw oul d be a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e , cla im in g th a t th e re is a se n ten c in g e rro r th a t se rio u sly a ffe c ts th e 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 ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . B r ow nerdoes notal l ege thatt he w ai veri t s el f i s unl aw ful , butques t i ons an a lleg e d se n ten c in g d isp a rityb e tw e e n a sim ilarlysitu a ted c o d e fe n d a n t. T h is is- 5-

pr eci s el yt he type of a t t ack w e s oughtt o for ecl os e i n Hahn and, ther efor e, w e fi nd n o m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Sandoval , 477 F. 3d 1204, 1208 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ( r ei t er at i ng pr i orhol di ngs thats ent enci ng obj ect i ons do not es t abl i s h t hatenfor cementof the appe al w ai verw oul d be unl aw ful , w hi ch i s the fo cu s o f th e m iscarri ag e-o f-justi ce inq u iry ). T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on i s G R A N T E D and the appe al i s di s m i s s ed. T he m andat e s hal l i s s ue fort hw i t h.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM