FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 6, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 18-3139 (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-04073-DDC & MARTIN LEE PARIS, 5:03-CR-40031-DDC-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the Motion of the United States for

Summary Affirmance and the response filed thereto by Defendant Martin Lee Paris.

The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of

Mr. Paris’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on this court’s recent published decision

in United States v. Pullen, 913 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019), en banc rev. denied April

15, 2019. While Mr. Paris does not dispute that United States v. Greer, 881 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018), and Pullen control the outcome of this appeal and does not

* After examining the briefs and 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. contest summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, he reserves the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari review.

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is granted. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam

2