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 

### Jan u ary19,2007 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. J ASON W AYN E WALLE R,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6333 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C R - 6 7 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

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

D e fe n d a n t Ja so n W a yn e W a ller p led g u ilty , p u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t, to b e in g in p o s s e s s io n o f a s to le n fir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (j ). Pur s uantt o t he pl ea a gr eement , M r . W al l erw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o “[a ] ppeal or c o lla te ra lly c h a lle n g e h is g u ilty p le a a n d a n yo th e r a s p e c t o f h is c o n v ic tio n , . . . [and t o] [a] ppeal , col l at er al l ychal l enge, orm ove t o m odi fy. . . hi s s ent ence as- 2-

i m pos ed byt he C our tand the manneri n w hi ch the s ent ence i s det erm i ned, pr ovi ded the s ent ence i s w i t hi n orbel ow the advi s or ygui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned byt he C our tt o appl yt o t hi s cas e. ” M ot . t o E nfor ce, E x. 2, at5. T he di s tr i ct cour ts ent ence d hi m t o ei ght y - fourm onths of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as w i thi n t he app l i cable advis orygu i deli ne rang e of 8 4 to 105 m on ths. A l t hough M r . W al l erw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence , he n o n ethe less fil ed this ap p ea l r aisi n g fiv e c h all en g es to the d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on of hi s s ent ence . T he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce M r. W all er’s w aive r of ap p ell ate righ ts un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( en banc ) ( percur i am). M r . W al l erhas r es ponded thatthe m ot i on s houl d be deni ed bec aus e enfor ci ng the pl ea a gr eementw i l l r es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. A s di s cus s ed bel ow , w e gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 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 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 t he w ai verw oul d [not ] r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 5 . A s is app l i cable here, a m i scarri age o f j ust i ce w i l l res ulti f “t he w ai ver i s ot herw i se un l aw ful, ” t o the ext ent that the all eged err or “ser i ou sl yaffect[s] the fa i rness ,- 3-

i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. at1327 ( quot at i on om i t t ed; ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 )) . T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce a ddr es s es eac h of the thr ee Hahn pr ongs . M r . W al l erconce des t hatthe s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the advi s orygui del i ne r ange a nd t hathe know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l as s t at ed i n t he pl ea a gr eement . M r . W al l eroppos es the mot i on onl yon the thi r d, m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e , p ro n g . W e th e re fo re a d d re s s o n ly th a t p ro n g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( r ecogni zi ng courtneed notaddr es s eac h Hahn fa c to r if d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t m a k e a rg u m e n t w ith re sp e c t to th a t fa c to r) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 5 5 0 (2 0 0 5 ). M r. W a ller a rg u e s th a t en fo rc e m e n t o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t w o u ld se rio u sly a ffe c tt h e fa i r n e s s , i n t e g r i t y , o rp u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . He ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n i m pos i ng a tw o- l evel s ent ence enhanc ement u n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(4 ), w h ich p rov ides fo r an en h an ce m en t i f a n yfirearm w as s t ol en. M r . W al l ercont ends thi s enhanc ementr es ul t ed i n hi m bei ng puni s hed t w i ce fort he s ame offens e of pos s es s i ng s t ol en fi r earm s . H e al s o cont ends that th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in a p p ly in g c e rta in p re v io u s c rim in a l co n v ictio n s to in c re a s e h is c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry. M r . W al l erm i s i nt erpr et s t he mi s carr i age of j us t i ce e xcept i on, w hi ch l ooks to w h ethe r “ the w ai veri s ot herw i s e unl aw ful , ” Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 7 (e m p h a sis added) , notw hethers om e otheras pectof the pr ocee di ng m ayhave i nvol ved l egalW hi l e Hahn dr ew t hi s di s t i nct i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran appe al w ai ver 1 w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 & n .1 2 , ita lso a p p lies in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r su c h a w a iv e r w a s o th e rw ise law f u l.

- 4- e rro r. M r. W a ller’ s c o n ten tio n th a t h is a p p e a l w a iv e r sh o u ld b e e x c u se d d u e to a lleg e d e rro rs in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f h is s e n ten c e e n tails w h a t Hahn not ed as “the l ogi cal fai l i ng[] of foc us i ng on t he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng, r atherthan on th e ri g h t re lin q u is h e d , in a n a lyzi n g w h e th e r a n a p p e a l w a iv e r is [ v a lid ].” Id . at 1 1 3 2 6 n .1 2 . “T h e re lev a n t q u e stio n . . . is n o t w h e th e r [ d e fe n d a n t’s] s e n ten c e is unl aw ful . . . , butw hether. . . hi s appea l w ai veri t s el f [i s ] unenfor cea bl e. ” P or t er , 405 F. 3d at1144. I ndeed, t o hol d thatal l eged e rr or s undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes r enderan appe al w ai verunl aw ful w oul d nul l i fyt he w ai verbas ed on t he verys or tof cl ai m i tw as i nt ended t o w ai ve. T hi s ci r cul arar gum enthas been re p u d ia te d in m a n yc a s e s . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Morgan , 386 F. 3d 376, 3 8 1 -8 2 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 1 6 9 (2 0 0 5 ); Un itedS ta tes v . A n d is , 3 3 3 F .3 d 8 8 6 , 8 9 2 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Br o wn , 232 F. 3d 399, 403- 04 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Kra tz , 1 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 1 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M r . W al l erar gues t hatt hi s courts houl d notenfor ce the appe al w ai ver b e c a u se , at th e tim e h e e n ter e d th e p lea a g re e m e n t, he d id n o t k n o w w h a t h is sent encing range w ou l d b e or w hat fact s the d i stri ctcou rtm i gh tuse t o incr ease h is s e n ten c e u n d e r th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e s. H e c ites to S e c o n d C irc u it au th o rity h o ld in g th a t, un d e r so m e c irc u m sta n c e s, a w a iv e r o f a p p e a l w ill n o t b e e n fo rc e d if- 5-

th e p le a a g re e m e n t d o e s n o t s p e c if ya n e x p e c te d s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e . See United S tates v. R osa , 1 2 3 F .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 0 -0 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). “H o w e v e r, in th is C ir cu itw e h av e c o n sist en tl yan d rep ea tedlyh eld th at bro ad w aive rs are enfor cea bl e eve n w her e theyar e notcont i ngenton the ul t i m at e s ent ence fal l i ng w i t hi n an i dent i fi ed s ent enci ng r ange. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Montano , __ F. 3d __, N o. 06- 2009, 2007 W L 10768, at* 3 ( 10th C i r . J an. 3, 2007) ( ci t i ng cas es and ex p resslyd ec li n ing to ad o p t Se co n d C ir cu itrule). T he pl ea a gr eementher e made cl earthe maxi m um s ent ence M r . W al l er fac ed fort he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on, thathe gave up m ul t i pl e cons t i tut i onal and a p p e llate rig h ts in e x c h a n g e fo r c o n c e ss io n s f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t, an d th a t h is s ent ence w oul d be det erm i ned i n acc or dance w i th 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , t aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on t he appl i cabl e gui del i nes . A s i n P or t er , the s ent ence i m pos ed byt he di s t r i ctcour tcompl i ed w i th the t erm s of the pl ea a gr eementand w i th the under s t andi ng of the pl ea M r . W al l erexpr es s ed atthe pl ea he ar i ng. M r . W al l er has notdemonstr at ed thati tw oul d be a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce t o enfor ce the w aive r. T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the w ai veri s G R A N T E D and t he appe al i s 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