Court Opinion

ID: 9381496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 23:00:28.303483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.850131
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2018     Document: 010110831195        Date Filed: 03/22/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 22, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                               No. 22-2018
  v.                                                 (D.C. No. 2:19-CR-00138-KG-1)
                                                                (D. N.M.)
  GABRIEL MANUEL LUCERO,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       This matter is before us on the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Oral Argument,

 Vacate Judgment, and Remand for Further Proceedings. Upon careful consideration,

 the joint motion is GRANTED as follows.

       The March 23, 2023 oral argument in this matter is VACATED, and all

 counsel are excused from attendance. This matter is REMANDED to the district

 court with instructions to (1) vacate its judgment and sentence, (2) consider whether

 the United States’ concession regarding the invalidity of the state cellphone search

       *
          In light of the parties’ joint motion, oral argument is not necessary, and this
 matter is submitted on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
Appellate Case: 22-2018    Document: 010110831195         Date Filed: 03/22/2023      Page: 2

 warrant affects the district court’s ruling that the 67-day delay in obtaining the

 federal search warrant was reasonable, and (3) conduct any other proceedings that it

 deems necessary or advisable to bring this case to a conclusion.

       The Clerk shall issue the mandate forthwith.

                                             Entered for the Court,

                                             Per Curiam

                                             2