|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,||
The defendants' appeal urges us to interpret § 2.17(a)(3) in a way that distinguishes this case from United States v. Oxx, 127 F. 3d 1277 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court in this case clearly stated
[b]oth sides acknowledge that the parachutes used by the defendants are the same as those at issue in Oxx. As stated in Oxx, , "the term 'parachute' in § 2.17(a)(3) unambiguously applies to the parachutes used by defendants in BASE jumping." See Oxx, 127 F.3d at 1279. The Tenth Circuit further stated, "[a] parachute by any other name is still a parachute, and delivering a person by parachute is prohibited" and "[t]echnological improvement in the shape, maneuverability, and control of modern parachutes, including those used here, do not make them cease to be parachutes." Id. at 1279-80.
United States v. Gravity Sports, Ltd., No. 2:96-CR-0052 B, slip op. at 5 (D. Utah May 30, 2000).
We find that the device used in this case is exactly the same device as that used in Oxx. We therefore find no principled way to distinguish this case from prior controlling authority of this court. This appeal is controlled by Oxx, supra. The order of the district court is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
*.This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.