Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hopkins, 17-1392 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 17-1392 Visitors: 82
Filed: Mar. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 20, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 17-1392 (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00076-PAB-1) TONY CURTIS HOPKINS, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _ Tony Hopkins was convicted of possessing contraband in prison and he was sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment
More
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 20, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 17-1392 (D.C. No. 1:17-CR-00076-PAB-1) TONY CURTIS HOPKINS, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Tony Hopkins was convicted of possessing contraband in prison and he was sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment. He entered his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal from his sentence. The Federal Public Defender (FPD) filed a notice of appeal on his behalf. The FPD subsequently withdrew from representing Mr. Hopkins and this court appointed Zachary Ives to represent him. The government has now filed a motion to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Mr. Hopkins has stated in his response that * This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. he does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer