Filed: Feb. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 1, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-8065 v. (D. Wyoming) CHARLES THUNEHORST, (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00355-ABJ-6) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Charles Thunehorst’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to his sentence. His opening brief, submitted on November 1 and filed on
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 1, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-8065 v. (D. Wyoming) CHARLES THUNEHORST, (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00355-ABJ-6) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Charles Thunehorst’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to his sentence. His opening brief, submitted on November 1 and filed on N..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 1, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-8065
v. (D. Wyoming)
CHARLES THUNEHORST, (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00355-ABJ-6)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Charles Thunehorst’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to his sentence.
His opening brief, submitted on November 1 and filed on November 19, 2010,
argues that the district court improperly construed 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
On November 15, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected the
same argument in Abbott v. United States,
131 S. Ct. 18 (2010). Mr. Thunehorst
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
concedes in his reply brief that Abbott “squarely rejected claims identical to those
made by Thunehorst in this case.” Aplee. Reply Br. at 1.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment below.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-2-