brief and the record in this case and discerns no meritorious basis for appeal.’ ” (quoting Notice of Intent Not to File Answer Br.)); United States v. Molina-Pereyra, 296 Fed.Appx. 641, 643 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008) (“In notifying this court of its intent not to file an answer brief, ... the government never mentioned the appeal waiver. Therefore, we find that the government has forfeited its opportunity to enforce the waiver.”); cf. United States v. Contreras-Ramos, 457 F.3d 1144, 1145 (10th Cir.2006) (“[W]e hold that where the government explicitly cites an appeal waiver in a letter to the Court in response to an Anders brief, the waiver is not waived.... ”). Ignoring the appellate waiver, we are .2d 786 (2011); United States v. Ramos-Lopez, 390 Fed. Appx. 833, 836 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tafolla-Zavala, 362
holding that by requesting a sentence at the low end of the guidelines it is clear  that the appellant waived any argument that he was entitled to a belowguideline sentence holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding trial court in determining proper sentence of a defendant may validly consider codefendants belowguideline sentence where the codefendant is at least if not more culpable than defendant holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that because at sentencing the appellant had asked the district court to impose the same sentence he now claims is substantively unreasonable the argument he seeks to make was waived