Forbes
Forbes v. Napolitano
2001 Daily Journal DAR 3575·247 F.3d 903·2000 WL 33261027·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2888·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 6106
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2001No. 99-17372California103 words
Lead Opinion
Schroeder, J.
Opinion by Judge SCHROEDER; Concurrence by Judge SNEED
*904 ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing that pertains to one sentence of the court’s opinion. The sentence reads: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may not be impermissibly vague in any of its applications.” Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.2000). The petition for rehearing is GRANTED to the extent that the sentence in question is deleted, and the following substituted: “But where a statute criminalizes conduct, the law may be invalidated on vagueness grounds even if it could conceivably have some valid application.”