
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Isabel LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-2049.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    June 3, 2011.
    Teresa Raymond, Office of the United States Attorney, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard C. Cauble, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Jose Isabel Lopez-Rodriguez’s plea agreement. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and unlawful reentry of a previously deported alien. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction or his sentence, provided his sentence was within the statutory maximum authorized by law. The defendant’s sentence of thirty-three months’ imprisonment was well below the statutory maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment for each conviction. Nevertheless, the defendant filed a notice of appeal.

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, the defendant’s counsel stated that there are no non-frivolous arguments that can be presented in response to the motion to enforce, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This court gave the defendant an opportunity to file a pro se response, see id, but to date, the defendant has not filed a response to the motion to enforce.

Under Anders, we have reviewed the motion and the record and we conclude that the defendant’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id, 359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors this court considers when determining whether to enforce a waiver of appellate rights).

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and DISMISS the 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.
     