Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated our ruling and remanded for our further consideration under Carpenter. See Thompson v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2706, 2706 (2018). After concluding that Carpenter superseded our earlier decision, we remanded for the district court "to determine whether its alternative holding survives Carpenter and for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision."
In March and April 2013, Judge David R. Platt of the Eighth Judicial District of Kansas issued wiretap orders for cell phones used by Mr. Thompson and Albert Dewayne Banks. Ensuing wiretaps produced information that law enforcement officers used to obtain search warrants for Mr. Thompson's residence, where "officers seized cell phones, cash, miscellaneous documents, drug paraphernalia, and credit cards." United States v. Thompson, 866 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (10th Cir. 2017), vacated and remanded by Thompson v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2706 (2018). A. Mr. Thompson's Criminal Case
Ensuing wiretaps produced information that law enforcement officers used to obtain search warrants for various locations, including Mr. Thompson's residence, where "officers seized cell phones, cash, miscellaneous documents, drug paraphernalia, and credit cards." United States v. Thompson, 866 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (10th Cir. 2017), vacated and remanded by Thompson v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2706 (2018). A. Mr. Banks's Criminal Case
This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. See Thompson v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2706 (2018); Banks v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018). Anthony Carlyle Thompson and Albert Dewayne Banks were arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute more than 280 grams of cocaine base and multiple counts of distribution of cocaine base.
Mr. Dixon notes that two of his co-defendants, Albert Dewayne Banks and Anthony Carlyle Thompson, ultimately prevailed on a similar argument. See Banks v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018); Thompson v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2706 (2018). Mr. Dixon has not alleged that his claim cannot be brought under Section 2255 or that his remedy under Section 2255 is otherwise inadequate or ineffective.
The Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded Mr. Thompson's case "for further consideration in light of Carpenter." Thompson v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2706 (2018). On remand, the Tenth Circuit ordered the parties to file simultaneous briefs to "(1) identify the issues Carpenter affects, and (2) address how the Supreme Court's analysis impacts, if at all, the positions taken by the parties in the briefs filed previously in the [Tenth Circuit]."