United States v. Edward Rosenthal, United States of America v. Edward Rosenthal

Good Law
454 F.3d 943·2006 WL 2005974·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18101
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 19, 200603-10307, 03-10370California3,408 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The panel, with the following amendments, has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing filed by Edward Rosenthal and the Government; Judge Berzon voted to deny Rosenthal’s petition for rehearing en banc and Judges B. Fletcher and Gibson so recommend. The panel has granted the government all relief it requested, and it has granted in part the relief Rosenthal requested.

The opinion filed April 26, 2006, slip op. 4745, and published at 445 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir.2006) is hereby amended as follows:

The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing and rehearing én banc and the proposed amendments included herein.

The opinion as amended is filed simultaneously with this order. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.

With the exception of the relief granted to the parties discussed herein, the petitions for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

OPINION

Edward Rosenthal appeals a three-count conviction for violations of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., asserting an as-applied Commerce Clause challenge, a claim of immunity pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.