FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 5, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 11-8066
(D.C. No. 2:10-CR-00263-ABJ-13)
EFRAIN MEDINA-TALAMANTES, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, O’BRIEN and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Efrain Medina-Talamantes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute, and to distribute, methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 & 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). His plea agreement included a waiver of the right
to appeal his sentence. Despite the waiver, Mr. Medina-Talamantes has filed an
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
appeal seeking to challenge his sentence. 1 The government has moved to enforce
the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.
2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Mr. Medina-Talamantes, through counsel,
represents that he “does not object to the motion for enforcement of [the] plea
agreement. Counsel was advised that [Mr. Medina-Talamantes] does not wish to
pursue his appeal any further and does not object to the dismissal of the appeal
with prejudice.” Resp. at 1.
Although we are not required to address a Hahn factor that the defendant
does not contest, see United States v. Porter, 405 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir.
2005), we have independently confirmed that: (1) this appeal is within the scope
of Mr. Medina-Talamantes appellate waiver; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily
waived his appellate rights; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a
miscarriage of justice. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.
The motion to enforce the plea agreement is GRANTED and this appeal is
DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
1
Mr. Medina-Talamantes also attempts to appeal from the district court’s
denial of his motion to reopen his conviction, but as the government points out,
there is no record of any such motion having been filed.
-2-