Allen v. Workman

Tenth Circuit

Allen v. Workman

464 F. App'x 768

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2012

Docket12-6094

StatusUnpublished

This text of 464 F. App'x 768 (Allen v. Workman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Workman, 464 F. App'x 768 (10th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

The district court entered a stay of petitioner’s imminent execution pending its disposition of a habeas petition claiming that he is not competent to be executed. See generally Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Respondent appealed from the order granting the stay. After a divided panel decision vacated the stay, the en banc court voted to take the matter under consideration and issued an order vacating the panel decision. As we noted, the immediate result was that the district court’s stay order remained in effect pending the en banc court’s resolution of respondent’s appeal. Allen v. Workman, No. 12-6094, Order at 2 (Apr. 12, 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court subsequently denied respondent’s separate application to vacate the district court’s stay order. Workman v. Allen, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1904, — L.Ed.2d-(2012).

Upon further review, the en banc court is now prepared to enter a decision disposing of the appeal and hereby affirms the order staying execution entered by the district court.

The order of the district court staying petitioner’s execution pending disposition of his habeas petition is AFFIRMED. 1 The mandate shall issue forthwith. The district court may immediately resume *769 proceedings on the underlying habeas petition.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, the en banc court 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. Judges O'Brien, Gorsuch, and Holmes dissent from the en banc court’s decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

PER CURIAM.

The district court entered a stay of petitioner’s imminent execution pending its disposition of a habeas petition claiming that he is not competent to be executed. See generally Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Respondent appealed from the order granting the stay. After a divided panel decision vacated the stay, the en banc court voted to take the matter under consideration and issued an order vacating the panel decision. As we noted, the immediate result was that the district court’s stay order remained in effect pending the en banc court’s resolution of respondent’s appeal. Allen v. Workman, No. 12-6094, Order at 2 (Apr. 12, 2012) (en banc). The Supreme Court subsequently denied respondent’s separate application to vacate the district court’s stay order. Workman v. Allen, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1904, — L.Ed.2d-(2012).

Upon further review, the en banc court is now prepared to enter a decision disposing of the appeal and hereby affirms the order staying execution entered by the district court.

The order of the district court staying petitioner’s execution pending disposition of his habeas petition is AFFIRMED. 1 The mandate shall issue forthwith. The district court may immediately resume *769 proceedings on the underlying habeas petition.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, the en banc court 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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. Judges O'Brien, Gorsuch, and Holmes dissent from the en banc court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F. App'x 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-workman-ca10-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack