Smith, In re
Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93-631,93-631 |
Citation | 10 F.3d 723 |
Parties | In re David L. SMITH. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before: SEYMOUR, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be fined, disbarred or otherwise disciplined for filing frivolous appeals in numbers 93-1070 and 93-1139, Deherrera v. Denver, 7 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir.1993) after the entry of this court's orders in Sandlin v. Canady (In re Canady), 993 F.2d 1551 (10th Cir.1993) and Dunkin v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Nos. 92-1230 & 92-1381 (10th Cir. February 11, 1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 87, 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993) and for filing a frivolous appeal in Casillan v. Regional Transportation District, 986 F.2d 1426 (10th Cir.1993). Respondent maintains the appeals were not frivolous. We disagree.
The appeals were found to be frivolous by the panels who decided them. We cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court. United States v. Killion, 7 F.3d 927 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 710 n. 3 (10th Cir.1990) ( ); United States v. Berryhill, 880 F.2d 275, 277 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1049, 110 S.Ct. 853, 107 L.Ed.2d 846 (1990).
Petition for certiorari, attached to appellant's motion to recall and stay the mandate filed July 12, 1993, in Dunkin v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Nos. 92-1230 & 92-1381 (10th Cir. February 11, 1993). Certiorari was denied without comment. Dunkin and Smith v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 87, 126 L.Ed.2d 54 (1993).
At oral argument, respondent admitted that he has not paid any of the sanctions that have been imposed on him by this court or the district court. David L. Smith is suspended from the practice of law before ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Henson
...of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superceding contrary decision by the Supreme Court." (quoting In re Smith , 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) )). In any event, our prior holding in Nelson is sound. ... Other circuits have reached the same conclusion. United States v. Kha......
-
Migneault v. Peck, 97-2099
...974 (10th Cir.1996) ("[A]n overruling of prior Tenth Circuit precedent ... lies beyond the power of this tribunal."); In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir.1993) ("We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Suprem......
-
U.S. v. Nichols, 98-1231
...by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court." In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir.1993); see also Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 109 F.3d 1540, 1542 (10th Cir.1997). Mr. Nichols attempts to avoid this rule by ar......
-
Cirocco v. McMahon
...or superseded by a contrary Supreme Court decision." Moreno , 2017 WL 2985748, at *3 (citations omitted). See, e.g., In re Smith , 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Spedalieri , 910 F.2d 707, 710 n.3 (10th Cir. 1990) (a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit prec......