United States v. Edlin

Filing 920080624


Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 24, 2008 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNEY EDLIN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-3040 (D.C. No. 2:06-CR-20174-KHV-1) (D. Kan.) ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. The government moves to enforce the appeal waiver it entered into with Berney Edlin. Citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mr. Edlin's response concedes that there are no meritorious grounds to counter the motion as his sentence is within the Guidelines range and did not exceed the statutory maximum and the plea agreement did not require a sentence at the low end of 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. * Guidelines range. Nonetheless, Mr. Edlin asks us to consider the relevant record to determine whether the appeal waiver should be enforced. After considering the government's appendix and independently applying the three-pronged analysis set forth in United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam), we conclude that the government's motion to enforce should be granted. Accordingly, we GRANT the government's motion to enforce the appeal waiver. This appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?