Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GRAJEDA-OLIVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-13
Citations: 360 F. App'x 983
Docket Number: No. 09-2204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GRAJEDA-OLIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 983–984

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Servando GRAJEDA-OLIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-2204.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 2010.
Norman Cairns, David N. Williams, Office of the United States Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John David Gates, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, 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's plea agreement. The motion is filed pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc). In response, defendant's counsel prepared the equivalent of an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), reciting the facts and identifying possible arguments suggesting this appeal is not subject to the defendant's appeal waiver, none of which have merit. Counsel then conceded that the government's motion is well taken because the appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id. at 1325. As part of his plea agreement defendant was accorded fast track status.
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
. Counsel's efforts and candor are commendable.