Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dell Buck SCHANZE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-23
Citations: 599 F. App'x 854
Docket Number: No. 15-4015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dell Buck SCHANZE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 854–855

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dell Buck SCHANZE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-4015.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 23, 2015.
Jared Carl Bennett, Karin M. Fojtik, Tyler Murray, Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kent R. Hart, Esq., Scott Keith Wilson, Jamie Zenger, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
Dell Buck Schanze appealed from an order imposing a pre-trial release condition that he remove all weapons from his home. After the parties negotiated a plea agreement, he eventually pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, and the district court sentenced him to twelve months of unsupervised release. Based on the conviction, the government has filed an unopposed motion to summarily dismiss Mr. Schanze's appeal as moot. See 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(1)(b) (permitting motion for summary disposition due to mootness).
Because a challenge to a pre-trial bail condition is moot after a defendant is convicted, see Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-84, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam), we grant the government's motion to dismiss.
This panel has determined 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.