United States v. Moore

119 F.4th 1232

Opinion

Appellate Case: 22-3173 Document: 133 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 21, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 22-3173 (D.C. No. 6:18-CR-10073-JWB-2) JAMARYUS MOORE, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

This matter is before the court on Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

(“Petition”). We also have a response from the United States, and a reply from Appellant.

The Petition, response, and reply were circulated to all non-recused judges of the

court who are in regular active service. As no member of the panel and no judge in

regular active service on the court requested that the court be polled, the Petition is

DENIED. Appellate Case: 22-3173 Document: 133 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 2

Judge Tymkovich separately concurs in the denial of rehearing en banc. Judge

Tymkovich’s concurrence is joined by Judge Carson.

Entered for the Court,

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

2 Appellate Case: 22-3173 Document: 133 Date Filed: 10/21/2024 Page: 3

No. 22-3173, United States v. Moore

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge, joined by Judge Carson, concurring in the denial of

rehearing en banc.

I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc. The reasoning of the two-step

sentencing procedure set forth in United States v. Moore, 30 F.4th 1021 (10th Cir. 2022),

should be addressed in a future case where it is objected to below and raised before us on

direct appeal.