Case ID: f3d_921/html/1252-01.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. Michael Patrick MCELHINEY, Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 18-3140
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed April 23, 2019
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT
    
      
      After examining the appellate record, 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
    
   Per Curiam.

This matter is before us on the "Motion of the United States for Summary Affirmance" ("Motion"). The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment based on this court's recent published decision in United States v. Pullen, 913 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019), en banc rev. denied April 15, 2019. Defendant-Appellant does not dispute that United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) and Pullen control the outcome of this appeal; Mr. McElhiney does not contest summary affirmance of the district court's judgment, but he reserves the right to appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court for further review.

In light of the foregoing, the abatement of this matter is LIFTED, and the Motion is GRANTED. In light of this court's decision in Pullen, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.