United States v. Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros

Good Law
96 Daily Journal DAR 12561·98 F.3d 1100·1996 WL 592639·45 Fed. R. Serv. 255·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26788
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 15, 199691-50336California140 words

Opinion

The majority opinion in this case, published at 71 F.3d 754 is amended as follows:

Page 761, last full paragraph on page:

Page 768, third full paragraph, first sentence:

The concurring opinion in this case, published at 71 F.3d 754, 772-775 , is amended as follows:

Page 772, first sentence of the concurrence:

Page 775, first full paragraph, second sentence:

With these changes, the panel votes unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Browning and Noonan vote to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Poole would so recommend.

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

The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.