Adrian Salmon v. M. Carillo Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General
This text of 222 F.3d 1046 (Adrian Salmon v. M. Carillo Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
The order filed June 28, 2000 is amended as follows: In light of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), it is ORDERED that this case be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s plea-related and appeal-related ineffectiveness of counsel claims. With this amendment, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
222 F.3d 1046, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6433, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 8515, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18348, 2000 WL 1056057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adrian-salmon-v-m-carillo-daniel-e-lungren-attorney-general-ca9-2000.