Eno v. Jewell

Ninth Circuit

Eno v. Jewell

805 F.3d 1154, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19697

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

DocketNo. 13-15166

StatusPublished

This text of 805 F.3d 1154 (Eno v. Jewell) 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.

Bluebook

Eno v. Jewell, 805 F.3d 1154, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19697 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 27, 2015, appearing at 798 F.3d 1245, is hereby amended. The petition for rehearing is granted in part and the opinion is amended as follows:

[1155]*1155At slip op. page 11 n. 2 [798 F.3d at 1251], change “We observed as much in a prior appeal involving Eno and charges of unauthorized removal of minerals from these lands.” to “We observed as much in a prior appeal, involving unauthorized removal of minerals from these lands, to which Eno was not a party.”

With this amendment, the panel has voted 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- and rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or panel rehearing shall be permitted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI