Lara-Torres v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Lara-Torres v. Gonzales

404 F.3d 1105, 2005 WL 913443

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 8, 2004·No. Nos. 02-72329, 03-70931, 03-70932·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The majority opinion filed September 8, 2004, slip op. 12991, and appearing at 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004), is hereby amended as follows:

1. Page 974, at end of second full paragraph, after citation to Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900-01, insert: “While this temporal distinction may not always be significant, in this case, Pineda’s allegedly ineffective assistance did not undermine the fairness of the removal proceedings in part because it was given well before the prospect of a hearing materialized.”

2. Page 975, at end of first paragraph: change “removed from the actual process itself’ to “which does not undermine the fairness of the actual process itself’

With these amendments, Judge McKeown has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Wallace and Mos-kowitz have so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for [1106]*1106rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

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

ORDER

The majority opinion filed September 8, 2004, slip op. 12991, and appearing at 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.2004), is hereby amended as follows:

1. Page 974, at end of second full paragraph, after citation to Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900-01, insert: “While this temporal distinction may not always be significant, in this case, Pineda’s allegedly ineffective assistance did not undermine the fairness of the removal proceedings in part because it was given well before the prospect of a hearing materialized.”

2. Page 975, at end of first paragraph: change “removed from the actual process itself’ to “which does not undermine the fairness of the actual process itself’

With these amendments, Judge McKeown has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Wallace and Mos-kowitz have so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for [1106]*1106rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

Lara-Torres v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1105, 2005 WL 913443 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

404 F.3d 1105 (Lara-Torres v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related