Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gilkey, 16-3105 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 16-3105 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2017 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 16-3105 (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20115-JWL-JPO-1) HERMAN L. GILKEY, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT _ Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _ This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in United States v. Collins, No. 15-3084.Collins was
More
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2017 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 16-3105 (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20115-JWL-JPO-1) HERMAN L. GILKEY, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in United States v. Collins, No. 15-3084.Collins was decided on February 14, 2017, and a petition for panel rehearing was granted on April 7, 2017 on a limited basis to issue a revised opinion. This matter is before us on Appellant Herman Gilkey’s Status Report wherein he states that the one issue he intended to raise on appeal— whether the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a subsequent revocation is measured by the penalties applicable to the first revocation instead of the penalties applicable to the initial conviction—was rejected by Collins, and he is, therefore, constrained to admit that this court should summarily affirm the district  This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. court. Upon consideration of Appellant’s status report and in light of this court’s decision in Collins, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 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