United States v. Paris, No. 18-3139 (10th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, May 6, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARTIN LEE PARIS, No. 18-3139 (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-04073-DDC & 5:03-CR-40031-DDC-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This matter comes on for consideration of the Motion of the United States for Summary Affirmance and the response filed thereto by Defendant Martin Lee Paris. The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Paris’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on this court’s recent published decision in United States v. Pullen, 913 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019), en banc rev. denied April 15, 2019. While Mr. Paris does not dispute that United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018), and Pullen control the outcome of this appeal and does not * After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. contest summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, he reserves the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari review. Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 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.