Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector JUAREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-21
Citations: 357 F. App'x 964
Docket Number: No. 09-4189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector JUAREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 964–964

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector JUAREZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-4189.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 21, 2009.
Lynda Rolston Krause, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Benjamin A. Hamilton, Federal Public Defender for the District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hector Juarez-Lopez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a previously removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. Although the plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, Mr. Juarez-Lopez filed a notice of appeal.
The government has moved to enforce the plea agreement based on Mr. Juarez-Lopez's appellate waiver. Under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam), we will enforce an appellate waiver if (1) the "appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights;" (2) "the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights;" and (3) "enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of justice." Id. at 1325. Mr. Juarez-Lopez, through his counsel, concedes that his appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that his waiver was knowing and voluntarily entered, and that enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, we GRANT the government's motion to enforce and DISMISS this appeal.
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.