The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-3196•United States of America v. Matthew W. Hutchinson
21-3196Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitFeb 9, 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW W. HUTCHINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-3196
(D.C. No. 6:10-CR-10080-EFM-2)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (the
“Motion”). At the court’s direction, the appellant filed his Supplement to Joint
Motion for Remand to clarify the relief requested, in which the government also
joined. Upon consideration, the Motion as supplemented is granted, as provided
below.
* After examining the parties’ motion, supplement to the motion, and 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth
Circuit Rule 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 9, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3196 Document: 010110642989 Date Filed: 02/09/2022 Page: 1
-- 1 of 2 --
2
This matter is fully remanded to the district court. We instruct the district court
to vacate the defendant’s revocation sentence and resentence him so the written
judgment can be amended to conform with the oral sentence pronouncement on the
grounds stated in the Motion and supplement, which are incorporated into this Order
and Judgment by reference. The district court’s revocation of the appellant’s
supervised release and sentence are otherwise affirmed.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 21-3196 Document: 010110642989 Date Filed: 02/09/2022 Page: 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.