Lucio Flores Ortega,petitioner-Appellant v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden,order

209 F.3d 1122, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4205, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3105, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7347, 2000 WL 432411
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 2000
Docket97-17232
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 F.3d 1122 (Lucio Flores Ortega,petitioner-Appellant v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden,order) 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
Lucio Flores Ortega,petitioner-Appellant v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden,order, 209 F.3d 1122, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4205, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3105, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7347, 2000 WL 432411 (9th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the opinion of the Supreme Court we vacate our opinion in Ortega v. Roe, 160 F.3d 534 (9th Cir.1998). This case is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the-opinion in Ernest C. Roe, Warden v. Lucio Flores-Ortega, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).

The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

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

Related

Flores-Ortega v. Roe
39 F. App'x 604 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F.3d 1122, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4205, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3105, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 7347, 2000 WL 432411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucio-flores-ortegapetitioner-appellant-v-ernest-c-roe-wardenorder-ca9-2000.