Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises Eufelio MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 17-2191
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises Eufelio MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises Eufelio MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-2191
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed December 27, 2017
(D.C. No. 5:17-CR-01643-JBM-1), (D. New Mexico)
James Robert Wolfgang Braun, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Dennis James Candelaria, Esq., Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant
Before BRISCOE, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
Moisés Eufelio Martinez, Jr., pleaded guilty to a drug offense and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. He appeals that sentence even though his plea agreement included a broad waiver of his appellate rights. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Through his counsel, Mr. Martinez concedes that the waiver bars his appeal. Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant the government's motion and dismiss the appeal.
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed,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,