United States vs. Colley, No. 06-2189 (10th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS November 28, 2006 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-2189 (D.C. No. CR-04-1460-JH) (D . N.M .) M ICHA EL C OLLEY , Defendant-Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before M U RPH Y, M cCO NNELL, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges. On September 19, 2006, the government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement executed by the parties. This court granted defendant two extensions of time to file his response to the motion. The first extension required that defendant s response be filed on October 16, and the second extended the response date to October 26. 1 To date, defendant has not filed a response. * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 1 On O ctober 30, defendant, through his counsel, filed a motion to dismiss (continued...) Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to enforce the plea agreement, along with the plea agreement, plea hearing transcript and sentencing hearing transcript attached to the motion, we GRANT the motion and DISM ISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM 1 (...continued) the appeal. Because the motion was deficient, this court, on October 31, denied the motion without prejudice to re-file in compliance with 10th Cir. R. 46.3(B). Apparently, defendant has chosen not to re-file his motion. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.