FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10111

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:00-cr-00505-WHA-3 Northern District of California, v. San Francisco

CHARLES W. MCCALL,

ORDER

Defendant - Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge.*

The memorandum filed on July 5, 2011 is hereby amended. The changes are

as follows:

Page 2, Line Insert <3. McCall’s defense theory was adequately covered by 8 the combination of the reckless disregard instruction and the good faith instruction. And “it is not reversible error to reject a defendant’s proposed instruction on his theory of the case if other instructions, in their entirety, adequately cover the defense theory.” United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 1990)).> before <3. It is>

* The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, sitting by designation. Page 2, Line Replace <3. It is> with <4. Even if there were an error in the 8 jury instructions, it is> Page 2, Line Delete 9 Page 2, Line Replace with 16

With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehearing the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing are DENIED. No further petitions shall be entertained.