United States v. Tucker, 680 F. App'x 786 (10th Cir. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Tucker, 680 F. App'x 786 (10th Cir. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Detrek Manchel TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant
16-6310.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mar 15, 2017.
Unpublished opinion
680 F. App'x 786
(D.C. Nos. 5:10-CR-00056-F-1 and 5:14-CV-00183-F) (W-D. Oklahoma), Steven W. Creager, Virginia Loreen Hines, Leslie M. Maye, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee ', Virginia L. Grady, Grant Russell Smith, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant
Phillips, McKay, McHugh.
Unpublished

ORDER RESCINDING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Carolyn B. McHugh, Circuit Judge.

On February 22, 2017, we issued an Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Certificate of Appealability, in which we granted a certificate of appealability as to “[w]hether, post-Johnson [v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) ], Mr. Tucker’s conviction under Oklahoma law for discharge of a firearm into a dwelling constitutes a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).” That same day, we issued an order appointing counsel to represent Mr. Tucker, and setting a supplemental briefing schedule.

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). In light of that opinion, we have[*787] determined that the aforementioned certificate of appealability was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we RESCIND the certificate of appealability issued on February 22, 2017, and DISMISS this appeal.

*

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.