Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey D. EDEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-14
Citations: 685 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 16-3304
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey D. EDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 685
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey D. EDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-3304
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed April 14, 2017
(D.C. No. 6:12-CR-10221-EFM-1) (District of Kansas)
David M. Lind, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Melody Brannon, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Tope ka, KS, Daniel T. Hansmeier, Kansas City, KS, Chrystal L. Krier, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in United States v. Collins, No. 15-3084.CoZ£ms 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 Casey Eden'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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.