Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman L. GILKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-3105
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed April 14, 2017
    (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20115-JWL-JPO-1) (District of Kansas)
    James A. Brown, D. Christopher Oakley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Annette B. Gurney, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Melody, Brannon, Paige Nichols, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, Daniel T. Hansmeier, Laquisha ShalomRoss, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges,
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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 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. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.