United States v. Nichols, No. 18-3179 (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, April 23, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SAMMY NICHOLS, No. 18-3179 (D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-02381-KHV & 2:03-CR-20149-KHV-DJW-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This matter is before us on the “Motion of the United States for Summary Affirmance” (“Motion”). The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment 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. DefendantAppellant does not dispute that United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) and Pullen control the outcome of this appeal; Mr. Nichols does not contest summary * After examining the 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. affirmance of the district court’s judgment, but he reserves the right to appeal this matter to the United States Supreme Court for further review. In light of the foregoing, the abatement of this matter is LIFTED, and the Motion is GRANTED. In light of this court’s decision in Pullen, 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.