
    Steven HOWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel McLAUGHLIN, in his individual and official capacity; Adam Daniels, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellants. Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle, Jr., in his individual and official capacity; Dan Doyle, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. United States of America; The States of Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Vermont, Amici Curiae. Steven Howards, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle, Jr., in his individual and official capacity; Dan Doyle, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellants, Daniel McLaughlin, in his individual and official capacity; Adam Daniels, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. United States of America, Amicus Curiae.
    Nos. 09-1201, 09-1202.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    July 18, 2012.
    Darold W. Kilmer, David A. Lane, Esq., Althea Licht, Esq., Mari Newman, Esq., Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Aaron L. Solomon, Esq., Richard A. Westfall, Esq., Hale Westfall, LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Sean Robert Gallagher, Polsinelli Shug-hart, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
    Barbara L. Herwig, Teal Luthy Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
    Before KELLY, SEYMOUR, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       After considering the Supreme Court’s opinion remanding this case, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The causes are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PAUL KELLY, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. In Howards v. McLaughlin, 634 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir.2011), we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to all Secret Service Agents on Mr. Howards’ Fourth Amendment claims, id. at 1143. We also reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Mr. Howards’ First Amendment claim as to Agents Daniels and McLaughlin, but affirmed such denial as to Agents Reichle and Doyle. Id. at 1149-50.

The Supreme Court has now reversed our judgment, holding that Agents Reichle and Doyle also are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2097, 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). Accordingly, all these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to these defendants and REMAND for entry of judgment in favor of these defendants. 
      
       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.
     