Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre J. TWITTY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-03
Citations: 632 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 16-1036
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre J. TWITTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before McHUGH, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre J. TWITTY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-1036.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 3, 2016.
J. Bishop Grewell, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andre J. Twitty, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before McHUGH, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Defendant-Appellant Andre J. Twitty appeals from an order of the district court denying Ms most recent motion seeking release pending resolution of Ms related appeal No. 14-1171. See Dist. Ct. Doc. 251 ("Motion to Alter or Amend the Release Pendmg Appeal Order, Pursuant to Rule 59(e)"). The latter appeal was finally resolved on February 1, 2016. In our decision, we noted Mr. Twitty had "requested release pending appeal from this court, ha[d] unsuccessfully requested release pending appeal from the district court, and [had] recently filed a motion M this case seeking review of the district court's demal of his district court motion for release." United States v. Twitty, No. 14-1171, slip op. at 14 (Feb. 1, 2016). We then explamed: "Now that we have disposed of this appeal, his motions addressing release pending appeal are moot." Id. That situation has not changed. The matter under review concerns release pending appeal and is, therefore, moot. Should Mr. Twitty wish to seek his release pending the outcome of proceedings on remand, he must of course request such relief in the first instance from the district court.
This appeal is dismissed.
This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doc trines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.