Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California
This text of 320 F.3d 891 (Lionel E. Gentry v. Ernie Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F.3d 891, 2003 Daily Journal DAR 1092, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 866, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lionel-e-gentry-v-ernie-roe-warden-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-ca9-2003.