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 ar c h 16,2007 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. DA RRELL TRI PLET T, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3249 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CR- 4 0 1 3 1 - J AR)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , M c CO NNELL , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

O n S e p tem b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , d e fe n d a n t p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams of a mi xtur e cont ai ni ng coca i ne and one c ountof pos s es s i on of fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e cont ai ni ng coca i ne. Pur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementbetw een de fenda ntand the U ni t ed St at es , defe ndant“know i ngl yw ai ve[d] anyr i ghtt o appea l a s ent ence i m pos ed-2-

w h ich is w ith in the g u ideline ra n g e d eterm ined ap p rop ri ate b ythe c o u rt . . . . In o th e r w o rd s, th e d e fe n d a n t w a iv e [ d ] th e rig h t to a p p e a l th e se n ten c e im p o se d in t hi s cas e exc eptt o t he ext ent , i f any , the courtdepart s upw ar ds fr om the appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe court . ” Pl ea A gr eement at12, ¶ 11. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng on J une 21, 2004, the di s tr i ctcourtfound that defe ndant ’ s offe ns e and r el evantconductamount ed t o 397. 78 ki l ogr ams of cocaine, t hat he po sses sed a fir earm i n co nn ect i on w i th the offen se, that he w as a m anage rors upervi s orof fi ve orm or e part i ci pant s , and thathe had obs truct ed ju s tic e b yc o m m ittin g p e rj u ry a t h is tr ia l, w h ic h h a d e n d e d in h is g u ilty p le a . B ased on t hese findi ng s, t he co urtdeterm i ned that defend ant’ s adj ust ed o ffen se l evel w as 43 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryl evel w as I I . U nderthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes , t hi s pr oduced a s ent ence of l i fe on e ach c ount . A ccor di ngl y , the dis t ri ctcou rtsent enced defe nd ant t o co ncu rr ent l i fe sentences. D efe ndantfi l ed a not i ce of appea l chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence s on J une 29, 2004, w hi ch w as docket ed as appea l N o. 04- 3237. T he U ni t ed St at es , i n turn, fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the w ai verof appe al r i ght s cont ai ned i n the pl ea agr eement . W hi l e thatappea l w as pendi ng the Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w hi ch s i gni fi cant l yal t er ed the s ent enci ng l ands cape . I n l i ghtof the B ookerdeci s i on, the U ni t ed St at es r econs i der ed i t s pos i t i on on defe ndant ’ s appea l . I tfi l ed a mot i on confe s s i ng that-3-

th e d istric t co u rt h a d c o m m itt e d b o th c o n stitu tio n a l an d n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ooker err ori n s ent enci ng defe ndant , t hatthe err or s w er e pl ai n, thattheyaffect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and thatt heyoughtt o be not i ced. T her efor e, the governm ent w i t hdr ew i t s m ot i on t o enfor ce the appe al w ai verand as ked thatthe ca s e be rem and ed fo r r esent encing. T his cou rtgrant ed the m oti on and rem and ed the case t o t he di s t r i ctcour tw i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o vaca t e the s ent ence pr evi ous l yi m pos ed and r es ent ence defe ndanti n acc or dance w i th B ooker . T he di s t r i ctcour tr es ent ence d defe ndanton M ay30, 2006. A tthe r es ent enci ng hear i ng, t he courtdet erm i ned thatw hi l e the gui del i nes advi s ed a l i fe s e n te n c e o n e a c h c o u n t, th e c o u rt w a s n o t g o in g to im p o s e a life s e n te n c e . I n s t e a d , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n tt h e o th e rs e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s c o n t a i n e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553, t he courtdet erm i ned thata more r eas onabl e s ent ence on eac h countw as t hirt yy ears . T hu s, t he co urti m po sed con curr ent thirty -y ear s entences. D efe ndantagai n fi l ed a t i m el yappea l of hi s s ent ence . H i s couns el fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), co n clud ing there w e re n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts fo r a p p e a l, bu t ad v a n c in g tw o a rg u m e n ts h is cl i entw oul d have hi m m ake. C ouns el then moved t o w i thdr aw . D efe ndantw as given an op po rtun i t yt o fil e a pro se res po nse t o h i s coun sel ’s A nd ers br i ef, w hi ch he di d. R athert han fi l e a mer i t s br i ef, the U ni t ed St at es m oved t o enfor ce the w ai verof appe al r i ght s cont ai ned i n the pl ea a gr eementpur s uantt o Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c) (p er c u ri am ).-4-

D e fe n se c o u n se l h a s re sp o n d e d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n sta tin g th a t itis appel l ant ’ s pos i t i on t hatt he courtdi d notdet erm i ne the appr opr i at e gui del i nes r ange a nd t hus di d noti m pos e a s ent ence w i thi n the appr opr i at e gui del i nes r ange, s o t hi s courts houl d cons i dert he mer i t s of hi s appea l r atherthan dee m i tw ai ved u n d e r th e p lea a g re e m e n t. D e fe n d a n t als o w a s g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d to t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on, w hi ch he di d. I n hi s pr o s e r es pons e, he ar gues thatt he g o v e rn m e n t fo rfe ited its rig h t to e n fo rc e th e a p p e a l w a iv e r w h e n it file d its m ot i on i n appea l N o. 04- 3237 confe s s i ng err or , w i thdr aw i ng i t s m ot i on t o enfor ce the a p p ea l w aive r, an d see k ing a re m an d . H e a lso a rgu es th at th e g o v ern m en t’ s confe s s i on of pl ai n err ori n t he ea r l i erappea l demonstr at es thatthe pl ea agr eementi t s el f w as nots ound and s houl d notbe enfor ced. Fi nal l y , he ar gues t hatonce thi s cour tr emanded t he ca s e forr es ent enci ng i ts om ehow vi t i at ed the p lea a g re e m e n t an d th e w a iv e r o f a p p e a l rig h ts c o n tain e d in th a t ag re e m e n t. U n d er Hahn , w e cons i der“( 1) w hetherthe di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n t he s cope of t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s ; ( 2) w hetherthe defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s ; and ( 3) w hetherenfor ci ng the w ai ver w oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” 359 F. 3d at1325. T he m i s carr i age- of-j us t i ce pr ong r equi r es the defendantt o s how ( a) hi s s ent ence r el i ed o n a n im p e rm iss ib le fa c to r su c h a s ra c e ; (b ) in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in connec t i on w i t h t he negot i at i on of the appe al w ai verr ender ed the w ai veri nval i d; (c ) h is s e n ten c e e x c e e d e d th e sta tu to rym a x im u m ; o r (d ) h is a p p e a l w a iv e r is-5-

o th e rw is e u n la w f

u l. Id. at13 27 . T he g ov ernm ent’ s m oti on add res ses these cons i der at i ons , expl ai ni ng w hynone of them under m i nes defe ndant ’ s appea l w aive r. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the pl ea a gr eement , the tr ans cr i pt s of the pl ea heari ng and t he resent encing h eari ng , cou nsel ’s A nd ers bri ef, defe nd ant’ s pro se br i ef, and the mat er i al s fi l ed byt he part i es i n connec t i on w i th the curr entm ot i on to en fo rce the p lea a g ree m en t. “U n d er Hahn , w e conc l ude thatdefe ndanthas w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l a n d h is c o n tr a ry a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e ri t.” A ccor di ngl y , w e G R A N T the governm ent ’ s M ot i on forE nfor cementof Pl ea A g re e m e n t an d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. D e fe n se c o u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w is G R A N T E D . D efen d an t’ s R esp o n se a n d O bjecti o n to “F o rm er” C o u n sel’s R e sp o n se to A p p e llee ’s M o tio n fo r E n fo rc e m e n t o f P lea A g re e m e n t an d M o tio n to D is m is s C o u n s e l is D E N IE D a s m o o t. T h e m a n d a te s h a ll is s u e fo rt h w ith . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM