maximum, or (4) the waiver is otherwise unlawful, i.e., the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or pub-He reputation of judicial proceedings. Id, at 1327. Af noted’ Martmez waived his rigbt to appeal any component of his conviction in the plea agreement Further> at the plea colloquy, the district court asked Martinez if he understood that he was waiving his right to appeal bofch his sentence and any comPonent of his conviction or sentence’ and defendant said that he did derstand this’ Tr' of Plea Hr’g’ at 12‘ The appeal waiver did not provide any exception to the broad aPPeal waiver permitting him to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss' Thus> this claim is ^thin the scope of the appeal waive1' See United States v. Lyons, 510 F.3d 1225, 1233 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Further, Martmez has not met his burden of
holding that defendan s appeid he denial of his motion to dismiss was ithin scope of his appeal waiver because the plea cements waiver provision did not reserve this issue as an exceptionto the waiver recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver