Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

320 F.3d 891, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1092, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 866, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2167
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 28, 2003·No. 00-55691·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

Opinion by Judge FARRIS; Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN

ORDER

The opinion filed August 8, 2002, and amended August 30, 2002, is further amended as reflected in the attached revised opinion. The dissent filed August 8, 2002, is also amended as reflected in the attached revised dissent.

With these amendments, Judges Hug and Farris voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing; Judge Silverman voted to grant the petition. Judge Silverman voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Hug and Farris so recommended.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.

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

Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, 320 F.3d 891, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1092, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 866, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2167 (9th Cir. 2003).

320 F.3d 891 (Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Freese v. Horton
E.D. Michigan, 2023
Hays v. Farwell
482 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Nevada, 2007)
Yarborough v. Gentry
540 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2003)