United States v. Ray Gibson

Opinion

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 17a0246p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │ > No. 15-6122

v. │ │ │

RAY GIBSON, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.

No. 6:14-cr-00025-1—Amul R. Thapar, District Judge.

Argued: October 11, 2017

Decided and Filed: October 31, 2017

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.*

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED EN BANC: Dennis C. Belli, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Finnuala K. Tessier, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Dennis C. Belli, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Finnuala K. Tessier, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., John Patrick Grant, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

*

Judge Amul R. Thapar recused himself from participation in this ruling.

No. 15-6122 United States v. Gibson Page 2

_________________

ORDER

_________________

This case was heard by the en banc court on October 11, 2017. The en banc court is evenly divided; therefore, the sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED. See Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 256 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Stupak-Thrall v. United States, 89 F.3d 1269, 1269 (6th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk