Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn La Velle ROLLINS, Defendant-Appellant. The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Amicus Curiae
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-27
Citations: 682 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 15-1459
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn La Velle ROLLINS, Defendant-Appellant. The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Amicus Curiae.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn La Velle ROLLINS, Defendant-Appellant. The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Amicus Curiae.
No. 15-1459
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed March 27, 2017
Robert Mark Russel, Karl L. Schock, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kyle W. Brenton, Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq., Davis Graham & Stubbs, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
Shawn La Velle Rollins, Pro Se
Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Amicus Curiae The Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming
Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This matter comes on for consideration of the government's Unopposed Motion for Summary Affirmance, in which the government moves for summary affirmance of the district court's sentencing determination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Defendant Shawn La Velle Rollins does not oppose the motion.
Upon consideration thereof, the motion is granted. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.