Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe ANDRADE-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-09
Citations: 301 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 08-4136
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe ANDRADE-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe ANDRADE-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-4136.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2008.
Stephen Sorenson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory W. Stevens, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the court on the government's motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Noe Andrade-Lopez's plea agreement. The motion was filed pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Defendant, through counsel, filed a response to the motion to enforce conceding that there are no meritorious grounds upon which he can urge denial of the government's motion to enforce the appeal waiver. Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the appeal is within the scope of the appeal waiver, that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in any miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the government's motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.