Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian PLASCENCIA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-20
Citations: 251 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 06-3343
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian PLASCENCIA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian PLASCENCIA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-3343.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 20, 2007.
Brent I. Anderson, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy J. Henry, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Due to a clerical error, this matter was originally terminated in an order, rather than an order and judgment. We vacate the order entered on September 20, 2007. In its place we are issuing this order and judgment nunc pro tunc to September 20, 2007.
Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Summary Remand is GRANTED. We decline to consider the issue addressed in the parties' appellate briefing, which was raised for the first time on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 720-21 (10th Cir.1993). Appellee's Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal is DENIED. This case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court for re-sentencing.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.