T hi s panel has det er m 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 t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doct r i nes of l aw of t he 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 t h 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 

### Ju n e26,2007 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. BR EA N N E J A N ETT E W ELL S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 4033 ( D . C. N o. 1: 06 - CR - 6- TS) ( D . U t ah)

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

D efe ndantB r eanne J anet t e W el l s pl ed gui l t yt o one countof di s t r i but i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . H erpl ea a gr eement s t at es t hats he “know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l yand expr es s l yw ai ve[s ] m yr i ghtt o appea l a n yse n ten c e im p o se d u p o n m e , an d th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e se n ten c e is det er m i ned, on anyof t he gr ounds s etfor t h i n T i t l e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode,-2-

Sect i on 3742 oron anygr ound w hat ever . ” Pl ea A gr eement , ¶10 at3. T he a g re e m e n t d id in c lu d e a n e x c e p tio n to th e w a iv e r, re se rv in g d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to appea l ( 1) a s ent ence above the maxi m um penal t ypr ovi ded i n t he s t atut e of convi ct i on . . . ; and ( 2) a s ent ence above the hi gh- end of the g u ideline ra n g e a s d eterm ined b ythe d istri ct co u rtat sen tenc ing , o r, in th e e v e n t th a t n o su c h d e ter m in a tio n is m a d e b yth e d istric t co u rt, a se n ten c e a b o v e th e h ig h -e n d o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e a s s e t fo rth in th e fin a l p re s e n te n c e re p o rt . Id. B as ed on an offens e l evel of 29 and c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , t he pr obat i on offi cercal cul at ed t he gui del i ne r ange a t151 t o 188 m ont hs . T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d defe ndantt o 151 m ont hs i n pr i s on fol l ow ed by60 m ont hs of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. D efe ndantappea l ed hers ent ence and the governm enthas m o v ed to en fo rce d efen d an t’ s ap p ea l w aive r 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). W e gr antt he mot i on and d is m is s th e a p p e a l. U n d er Hahn , w e cons i der“( 1) w hethert he 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) w hethert he 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 t he w ai ver w oul d r es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. at1325. T he mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce p ro n g re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to sh o w (a ) h e r se n ten c e re lied o n a n im p e rm iss ib le fac t ors uch as r ace ; ( b) 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 t he appe al w ai verr ender ed t he w ai veri nval i d; ( c) hers ent ence-3-

exce eded the s t atut or ym axi m um ; or( d) herappea l w ai veri s ot herw i s e unl aw ful and t he err or“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] t he fa i r nes s , 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) . T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on ad d resse s the se c o n side rati o n s, ex p lai n ing w h yn o n e u n d erm ines d efen d an t’ s a p p e a l w a iv e r h e re . W e a g re e . D efe ndantdoes notcont es tt hatherappea l fal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of her appea l w ai vernordoes s he di s put e thats he know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved her appel l at e r i ght s . D efe ndantar gues , how ever , t hatherappea l w ai vers houl d notbe enfor ced be caus e t he w ai verr es ul t s i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. Speci fi cal l y , s he as s er t s t hat“herappea l w ai vers houl d notbe enfor ced be caus e of the l engthy se n ten c e im p o se d , w h ich is a t lea st th irtyo n e (3 1 ) m o n th s g re a ter th a n se t fo rth in th e p lea a g re e m e n t.” M e m o . in O p p ’n to M o t. t o E n fo rc e P lea A g m t. at 2 . T h is ar gum entdoes notaddr es s anyof t he fours ub- fac t or s nece s s ar yt o m ake a s how i ng on t he mi s carr i age- of-j us t i ce pr ong. T her e i s no s how i ng t hather s ent ence r el i ed on an i m per m i s s i bl e fa ct or , t hathercouns el w as i neffect i ve, t hat h e r se 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 th a t h e r a p p e a l w a iv e r is ot her w i s e unl aw ful . M or eover , hers t at ement m i s char act er i zes t he cont ent s of t he pl ea a gr eement , w hi ch s i m pl ys t at es t hatt he governm entw i l l r ecomm end thatt he defe ndantbe s ent ence d t o no m or e than 120 mont hs , i f al l of t he condi t i ons of t he pl ea a gr eementar e met . T he governm enti ndi cat ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng,-4-

h o w e v e r, th a t d e fe n d a n t’s p o st-p lea c o n d u c t d id n o t w a rra n t an yfa v o ra b le s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s . D efe ndanthas notm etherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hatherappea l w ai ver sh o u ld n o t b e e n fo rc e d . A c c o rd in g ly , the m o tio n to e n fo rc e th e w a iv e r is G R A N T E D a n d th e a p p e a l is D IS M IS S E D . 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