Case ID: f-appx_683/html/0656-01.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. Daniel Adolph RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-1384
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed March 28, 2017
    Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Meredith B. Esser, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This matter comes on for consideration of the government’s Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter in which the government informs the court of the Supreme Court decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and the defendant’s “Statement Re: Beckles,” in which the defendant states that he “agrees with the Government that Beckles forecloses relief in this case.”

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       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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