F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 7 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAVID K. HOEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5000
(D.C. No. 96-CV-268-E)
DONALD B. ATKINS; T. BRETT (N.D. Okla.)
SWAB; TODD W. SINGER; DAN
MURDOCK; LAWRENCE A.G.
JOHNSON; BROWN J. AKIN, III;
LAURIE E. AKIN; J. PETER
MESSLER; BRADFORD GRIFFITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
alleging defendants are liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
The district court determined that plaintiff failed to allege interstate effects
sufficient to support a RICO claim, as he alleged in his complaint: “The impact
of [defendants’] schemes and activities occurred in Oklahoma. The participants
in this enterprise are residents of Oklahoma.” See Appellees’ Joint Supp’l App.
at 79-80; see also Appellant’s App. at 3; 18 U.S.C. § 1962. We have carefully
reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. We affirm for substantially the
same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s order filed December 6,
1996.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-2-