F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
November 9, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 05-2294
(D.C. No. CR-05-458 M CA)
M ARTIN ARA NDA-BR IONES, (D . N.M .)
Defendant-Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, EBEL, and BR ISC OE, Circuit Judges.
Defendant M artin Aranda-Briones pled guilty to illegally reentering the
country following removal after conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His plea agreement states that he “knowingly
waives the right to appeal any sentence within the statutory range applicable to
the statute(s) of conviction.” Plea Agreement at 5 (dated M ar. 21, 2005). The
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
district court imposed a sentence of forty-six months, well within the twenty-year
maximum specified in § 1326(b)(2). The court also imposed a two-year term of
supervised release, again within the statutory maximum term of three years. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2). Contemplating defendant’s removal after
his release from confinement, the court did not designate standard conditions of
supervised release but did specify as a special condition that the defendant not
reenter the United States without legal authorization.
Defendant appealed and, in his opening brief, raised one issue: “W as the
imposition of a term of ‘unsupervised supervised release’ unreasonable?” Aplt.
Opening Br. at 1. The government moved to enforce the appeal waiver in
defendant’s plea agreement under United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.
2004) (en banc). Defendant, through counsel, has responded and “concedes that
the motion is enforceable.” Aplt. Resp. to M ot. to Enforce Plea Agreement at 1.
Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion and DISM ISS the
appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-2-