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. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 19, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , v. G E R V A C IO A L V A R A D O -B E N J U M E ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 2103 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CR- 2 3 3 1 - J B)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

G ervaci o A l var ado- B enj um e pl eade d gui l tyt o bei ng an i l l egal al i en w ho re e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s a f ter h a v in g b e e n c o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n yin vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) , and ( b) ( 2) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 21 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , att he l ow end of the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. H i s pl ea agr eementcont ai ns a w ai verof appe al r i ght s . M r . A l var ado- B enj um e has-2-

appea l ed, and the governm enthas m oved t o enfor ce the appe al w ai verunder Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). M r. A lvara d o -B enjum e’s c o u n sel fil ed a re sp o n se to the g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on s t at i ng t hat“[u] nder s i gned couns el has car eful l yr evi ew ed thi s m at t erand can f i nd no bas i s foran appe al of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” R es p. at2. C ouns el i ndi cat ed that [ i]t is th e p o sitio n o f

M r. A lv a ra d o -B e nju m e th a t th e 2 1 m o n th se n ten c e im p o se d in th is m a tter is u n fa ir a n d to o lo n g fo r h is c o n v i c t i o n . . . . I t[ i s ] f u r th e rth e p o s i t i o n o f

M r . Al v a r a d o - Be nj u me th a t th e tw e lv e (1 2 ) le v e l en h a n c e m e n t o f o ffe n se lev e l p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 .(b )(1 )(B ) b a se d u p o n a p rio r fe lo n yA ttem p ted S a le o f N a rc o tic D ru g s c o n v ictio n a m o u n ts to d o u b le p u n ish m e n t. R es p. at4. I n l i ghtof hi s couns el ’ s r es pons e, w e gave M r . A l var ado- B enj um e the oppor tuni t yt o r es pond and s how w hythi s courts houl d notenfor ce the w ai verof ap p ell ate righ ts. H e d id n o t r esp o n d . H av ing co n side red the g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on and couns el ’ s r es pons e, w e gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on and di s m i s s t he a p p e a l. 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-3-

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 ot herw i s e unl aw ful and the err or“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyor publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. a t 1 3 2 7 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Wi thi n Scope of

Wai ver M r. A l varado -B enjum e’s plea agreem ent s t at es: T he D efe ndanti s aw ar e thatfede r al l aw affor ds a D efe ndantthe r i ght t o appea l t he s ent ence i m pos ed. A cknow l edgi ng that , the D efe ndant know i ngl

y w ai ves the r ightt o appealany s ent ence w i thi n the ap p lica b le s e n ten c in gg u id e lin e ra n g e a n dimp o se din c o n fo rm ity w i th this pl ea agr eem ent . I n addi t i on, the D efe ndantagr ees t o w ai ve a n yc o llate ra l atta c k to th e D e fe n d a n t’s c o n v ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2255, exce pton t he i s s ue of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l. M ot . , A t t ach. 1, at4 ( emphasi s added) . T he i s s ues M r . A l var ado- B enj um e w i s hes to a p p e a l co n c e rn h is s e n ten c e . T h e se n ten c e w a s a t th e lo w e n d o f th e a p p lica b le G ui del i nes r ange a nd t her e i s no i ndi cat i on thati tcontr avene d anypor t i on of the pl ea a gr eement . A ccor di ngl y , t he appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w ai verof app el l at e ri gh t s. Know i ng and Vol untar y Wai ver I n det erm i ni ng w hetherM r . A l var ado- B enj um e’ s appea l w ai verw as m ade know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , w e cons i der“w hetherthe l anguage of the pl ea agr eements t at es t hat[he] ent er ed the agr eementknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y ” and w hethert her e i s “an a dequat e Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11-4-

col l oquy . ” Hahn , 359 F. 3d at1325. M r . A l var ado- B enj um e bea r s the “‘ bur den t o pr es entevi dence fr om t he r ecor d es t abl i s hi ng thathe di d notunder s t and t he w ai ver . ’ ” Id. at1329 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. E dgar , 348 F. 3d 867, 872- 73 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). Th e p l e a a g r e e me n ta p p e a l wa i v e rs t a t e s th a tM r . Al v a r a d o - Be nj u me “know i ngl yw ai ves t he r i ghtt o appea l . . . . ” M ot . , A t t ach. 1 at4. Fur ther , the pl ea a gr eements t at es t hat“[t ] he D efe ndantagr ees and r epr es ent s thatthi s pl ea of gui l t yi s fr eel yand vol unt ar i l ym ade a nd notthe r es ul tof for ce orthr eat s orof pr om i s es apartfr om t hos e s etfor th i n thi s pl ea a gr eement . ” Id. at5. A nd j ust b e fo re th e sig n a tu re b lo c k , itsta tes , “I h a v e re a d th is a g re e m e n t an d c a re f u lly r evi ew ed eve r ypartof i tw i t h m yatt orneyi n m ynat i ve l anguage . I under s t and t he cha r ges , t he pena l t i es , and have ful l ydi s cus s ed the ca s e and mypot ent i al defe ns es w i t h m yatt or ney . . . . I under s t and the agr eementand vol unt ar i l ys i gn i t . ” Id. T hus , t he l anguage of the pl ea a gr eementi ndi cat es that M r . A l v a r a d o - B e nj u m e e n t e r e d t h e a g r e e m e n tk n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y. It a p p e a rs, h o w e v e r, th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to a d d re ss th e a p p e llate w ai verdur i ng t he R ul e 11 col l oquy . T he courtadvi s ed M r . A l var ado- B enj um e of t he var i ous r i ght s he w oul d be gi vi ng up bypl eadi ng gui l ty , buti tdi d notm ent i on t he r i ghtt o appea l , M ot . , A t t ach. 2 at12- 13, and i tdi d nototherw i s e addr es s the a p p e llate w a iv e r. T h e o n lyre fe re n c e to th e w a iv e r is th e p ro se c u to r’s sta tem e n t, i n hi s s um m aryof the pl ea a gr eementpr ovi s i ons , that“y ou have y ourpot ent i al-5-

penal t i es i n H and then movi ng t o par agr aph fi ve, page four , y ou have y our w ai verof appe al r i ght s and pos t convi ct i on chal l enges t o s ent ence . ” Id. a t 3 7 -3 8 . B utt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s the w ai verdur i ng the R ul e 11 col l oquydoes notnece s s ar i l ym ean thatthe w ai verw as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11( b) ( 1) ( N ) pr ovi des that“the cour tm us ti nform t he defendantof, and det erm i ne thatthe defendantunder s t ands

. . . the ter m s o f

a n yp lea -a g re e m e n t p ro v isio n w a iv in g th e rig h t to a p p e a l o r to co ll aterall yatt ac k the s en tenc e.” T h is co u rth as h eld th at “itis al w ay s erro r fo r a di s t r i ctcourtt o fai l t o di s cus s an appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on dur i ng a R ul e 11 col l oquy , al t hough notal w ay s r ever s i bl e err or . ” E dgar , 348 F. 3d at871. W her e, as her e, t he defendantdi d notr ai s e the i s s ue i n the di s tr i ctcour t , w e r evi ew the e rr o r u n d e r t h e p la in e rr o r s ta n d a rd . Id. T o not i ce pl ai n err orunderFed. R . C r i m . P. 52( b) , the err orm us t( 1) be an a ctual err ort hatw as for fei t ed; ( 2) be pl ai n orobvi ous ; and ( 3) affect s ub st anti al ri gh t s, i n o ther w ords, i n m ostcases the err or m ust be pr ej udi ci al , i . e. , i tm us thave a ffe ct ed the out come. I f al l thr ee c o n d iti o n s a re m e t, an a p p e llate c o u rt m a yth e n e x e rc ise its di s cr et i on t o not i ce a for fei t ed err or , butonl yi f ( 4) the err or s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al proceed i ng s. Id. (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n o m itted). A s i n E dgar , in th is c a s e th e re w a s a n e rr o r t h a t w a s o b v io u s . S e e id . at 871- 72 ( ci t i ng Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11( b) ( 1) ( N ) ) . I tdoes notappea r , how ever , that t he err oraffect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . “I n the cont extof a pl ea a gr eement , an err or-6-

is p reju d icia l if th e d e fe n d a n t h a s s h o w n th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u iltyif t he di s t r i ctcour thad compl i ed w i th R ul e 11( b) ( 1) ( N ) . ” Id. a t 8 7 2 . T h e re is not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s how t hatM r . A l var ado- B enj um e w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l t yi f the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s R ul e 11 col l oquyhad ade quat el yaddr es s ed the appel l at e w ai ver . I n addi t i on t o t he pl ea- agr eementevi dence of a know i ng and v o l u n t a r ywa i v e rt h a twe a d d r e s s e d a b o v e , a tth e c o l l o q u yM r . Al v a r a d o - Be nj u me t es t i fi ed thathe w as nott hr eat ened orfor ced t o ent eri nt o the pl ea a gr eementand th e re w e re n o p ro m is e s o th e r t h a n th o s e c o n ta in e d in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. M o t., A ttac h . 2 a t 1 9 . H e sta ted th a t th e p lea a g re e m e n t h a d b e e n re a d to h im in Spani s h, t hathi s at t or neyhad r evi ew ed eve rypar agr aph of i tw i th hi m , and that h e u n d e rs to o d th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im a n d th e p o s s ib le p e n a ltie s . Id. a t 3 0 , 3 4 . H e te s tifie d th a t h e s ig n e d th e p le a a g re e m e n t f re e ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly. Id . a t 3 5 . T he pr os ecut orm ent i oned the appe l l at e w ai veri n s um m ar i zi ng the t erm s of the pl ea de al and defens e couns el decl i ned t o t ake e xcept i on t o the s um m ar i zat i on or c a ll a tte n tio n to a n yo th e r a s p e c t o f th e p le a a g re e m e n t. Id. at38- 39. Fur ther , t he ar gum ent s t hatM r . A l var ado- B enj um e appa r ent l yw i s hes t o r ai s e on appe al do not c o n tes t th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f th e p lea ; th e yc o n c e rn o n lyth e c a lcu latio n o f h is sen tenc e. W e c o n clud e tha t th e M r. A lvara d o -B enjum e’s su b stan ti al ri g h ts w ere n o t affec ted b ythe d efici en t R u le 11 co ll o q u y , an d thu s the p lai n -error stan d ard h a s n o t b e e n m e t.-7-

T her e i s no r ecor d evi dence t o di s put e M r . A l var ado- B enj um e’ s w r i t t en and v e rb a l a s s e rt io n s o f

a k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry w a iv e r, s ee Edgar , 348 F. 3d at873, and thus w e fi nd t hatM r . A l var ado- B enj um e’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l w as k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry. Mis car r i age of Jus t i ce Fi nal l y , w e cons i derw hetherenfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d r es ul ti n a m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d at 13 2 5 . M r. A lvara d o -B enjum e’s se n ten c e d id n o t ex c e e d th e sta tu to rym a x im u m a n d th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t it re lied o n a n im p e rm iss ib le fa c to r. T h e re is n o in d ica tio n in th is re c o rd th a t h is c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e n e g o tiatio n o f th e w a iv e r, an d in a n ye v e n t, i n e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im s u su a llya re b e st a d d re ss e d in coll at eral proceed i ng s. F i nall y , there i s no indi cat i on that the w ai ver i s ot herw i se u n la w f u l. T h e m o tio n to e n fo rc e p lea a g re e m e n t is G R A N T E D a n d th e a p p e a l is DI S M I S S E D.

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