FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

July 11, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.

JUAN SUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.	No. 06-3014
(D.C. Nos. 05-CV-3366-JWL and  03‑CR‑20085‑JWL)
(D. Kan.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, EBEL and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

	Juan Suarez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for habeas corpus. We deny his request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.

	On February 2, 2004, Mr. Suarez pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 by conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine.  In the plea agreement executed by Mr. Suarez, he “waive[d] any right to appeal or collaterally attack any matter in connection with [his] prosecution, conviction and sentence,” including his right to file “a motion brought under . . . § 2255.”  On direct appeal, Mr. Suarez challenged his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).  We granted the Government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement and dismissed that appeal.  
	Mr. Suarez subsequently filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  In that motion, Mr. Suarez asserted that 1) his conviction violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; 2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) his sentence is unconstitutional under Blakely and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).  In response, the Government again sought to enforce Mr. Suarez’s plea agreement waiver.  The district court, in a very well-reasoned and thorough opinion, granted the Government’s motion, finding that Mr. Suarez entered the agreement knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.  The court then dismissed Mr. Suarez’s § 2255 motion, and Mr. Suarez applied to this court for a COA to appeal that dismissal.  
	We have carefully reviewed the record, Mr. Suarez’s brief, the district court’s order, and the applicable law.  We conclude, for the same reasons set forth by the district court in its order dismissing Mr. Suarez’s § 2255 motion, that no “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted).  Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Suarez’s request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

						ENTERED FOR THE COURT

						David M. Ebel
						Circuit Judge