Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Leonhardt HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 689 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 17-3056
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Leonhardt HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MORITZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Leonhardt HAUPT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-3056
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed May 26, 2017
(D.C. No. 2:15-CR-20019-JAR-1), (D. Kansas)
James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Carrie N, Capwell, Sheri Catania, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Colin D. Wood, Office of the United States At torney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Virginia L. Grady, O. Dean Sanderford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
Before MORITZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
The government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to an appeal waiver included in defendant-appellant Charles Haupt's plea agreement. Mr. Haupt, through counsel, "agrees that his appeal waiver is enforceable under . United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc)" and "does not oppose the dismissal of this appeal." Resp. to Mot. for Enforcement of Appeal Waiver at 1.
Accordingly,' the appeal is dismissed.
This panel has determined 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.