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 d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der a n d ju d g m e n t m a yb e c ite d u n d e r t h e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

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

### Ju ly21,2006 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. H A RR Y LA V O N N RO BE RT S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 7037 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C R - 4 2 - W) (E .D . O k la .)

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

D e fe n d a n t H a rryL a v o n n R o b e rts 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 a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d hi m t o s i xty - thr ee mont hs of i m pr i s onm entt o be fo llo w e d b yth irty -six m o n th s o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . A lth o u g h M r. R o b e rts w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence “on anygr ound, ” Pl ea A gr eementat9, heIt is c lea r f ro m th e p lea a g re e m e n t an d p lea c o llo q u yth a t th is a p p e a l fa lls 1 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 2- nonethel es s fi l ed thi s appea l . T he governm enthas fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce M r. R o b erts’ 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 . R obert s has r es ponded thatt he 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. I n Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 5 , this c o u rt h e ld th a t “in re v iew in g a p p e a ls b ro u g h t af

ter a d e fe n d a n t h a s e n ter e d in to a n a p p e a l w a iv e r” th is c o u rt w ill det erm i ne “( 1) w hethert he di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of the w ai verof a p p e llate rig h ts; (2 ) w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is appel l at e r i ght s ; and ( 3) w hetherenfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d r es ul ti n a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e .” A s is a p p lica b le h e re , a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e w ill re su lt i f “the w ai veri s ot herw i s e unl aw ful , ” t o the ext entthatthe al l eged e rr or “s er i ous l yaffect [s ] t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. at1327 ( quot at i ons 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 p ro n g s . M r. R o b e rt s , h o w e v e r, o p p o s e s th e m o tio n o n ly o n th e th ir d p ro n g . W e t her efor e addr es s onl y t hat pr ong. See Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 w i t hi n t he s cope of

t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s and M r . R obert s know i ngl yand v o lu n ta ri ly w a iv e d h is a p p e lla te ri g h ts .

- 3- 1143 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( 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 s p 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. R o b e rts 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 pr i m ar i l ybas es hi s ar gum enton a r ece ntT enth C i r cui tdeci s i on, Uni t ed Stat es v. In g le , N o . 0 6 -5 0 9 1 , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 8 2 8 5 3 7 (1 0 th C ir. Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 6 ). A c c o rd in g to M r. R o b e rt s , Ingl e hel d t hata convi ct i on forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fir e a rm is n o t a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . S e e id . at*1, *4. B as ed on hi s i nt erpr et at i on of In g le , M r . R ober t s cont ends t hati tw as a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce forthe di s tr i ct cour tt o t r eathi s convi ct i on as a cr i m e of vi ol ence w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence of s i xt y - t hr ee mont h’ s i m pr i s onm ent . A l s o, he mai nt ai ns he coul d notw ai ve the r i ghtt o appea l t hi s i s s ue bec aus e Ingl e h a d n o t b e e n d e c id e d a t th e tim e o f h is s e n te n c in g . W e di s agr ee w i t h M r . R obert s ’ i nt erpr et at i on of In g le . Ingl e cl ear l yl i m i t ed its h o ld in g to c a s e s d e c id e d u n d e r t h e B a il R e fo rm A c t o f 1 9 8 4 . Id. T h a t A c t is inap p li ca b le t o M r. R o b erts’ sen tenc ing . R athe r, at sen tenc ing , the d istri ct co u rt deci ded, bas ed on the cha r gi ng i ns trum ent , thatM r . R obert s ’ pr edi cat e convi ct i on- 4-

forbur gl aryw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence underthe def i ni t i on s etfor th i n the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. S e n ten c in g T r. at 4 1 -4 2 ; s ee als o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) (d e fin in g c rim e o f

v io len c e to in c lu d e o ffe n se o f b u rg lar yo f

d w e lli n g p u n ish a b le b yg re a ter th a n o n e y e a r o f im p riso n m e n t); Un itedS ta tes v . Vig il , 334 F. 3d 1215, 1218- 19 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( perm i t t i ng courtt o det erm i ne natur e of offens e by lo o k in g a t c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t) . Ingl e d o e s n o t o v e rr u le th e g u id e lin e s ’ d e fin itio n . Fur t herm or e, t he pl ea a gr eements t at ed thatthe s t atut or ym axi m um s ent ence w as t en y ear s and thatt he di s tr i ctcourtw as fr ee t o i m pos e a s ent ence up t o t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A tt he pl ea c ol l oquy , M r . R obert s s t at ed thathe under s t ood t hatt he maxi m um s ent ence w as up t o t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he sent ence im po sed con form s w i t h the pl ea agreem ent’ s t erm s and M r. R ob ert s’ u n d e rs ta n d in g o f

th e p le a . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Maldonado , 410 F. 3d 1231, 1234 (10 th C ir . ) (pe r cu ri am ) cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 57 7 (2 0 0 5 ). M r. R o b e rts m e re ly s pecul at es t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtw as unaw ar e thati tcoul d i m pos e onl ys upervi s ed re le a s e , w ith o u t a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. W e conc l ude thatM r . R obert s has notm ethi s bur den t o per s uade us that t he w ai veri s “otherw i s e unl aw ful . ” Id. a t1 2 3 3 . C o n c e rn s o f fa i rn e s s , i n t e g r i t y, a n d p u b lic re p u ta tio n fa v o r e n fo rc in g th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r. W e G R A N T t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce the pl ea a gr eementand- 5-

D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. 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