Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-10
Citations: 678 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 16-1420
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 784–784

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee ANDERSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-1420
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed March 10, 2017
Karl L. Schock, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
Lawrence Lee Anderson, Jr. accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, below both the statutory maximum penalty and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Although the plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, Mr. Anderson appealed. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
Under Hahn, we consider "(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice." Id. at 1325. We need not address a Hahn factor that the appellant does not contest. See United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005).
In his response to the government's motion, Mr. Anderson, through counsel, informs the court that he does not oppose the motion. Further, he has not contested any of the Hahn factors. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is granted, and this matter is terminated.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.